Sunday, September 6, 2015
World War III stated about a year ago.
Wave after wave of forced immigration.
Forced?
The flood of refugees is a created thing.
That is the First Strike.
Move large numbers of people into a country, and immediately the social supports in that country get tapped out.
The list is long of the resources that 'disappear' or become scarce when the refugees come.
And this is in the first few weeks of any groups arrival.
Then there is housing, food and jobs for the long-term.
Medical attention is costly, and many of the new arrivals will be in need of doctors.
So, [war-torn region] sends out wave after wave of refugees.
It doesn't cost a lot to do that, BTW.
Pass laws banning religious practices, ban their traditional music, put restrictions on the work they can do. Slant the Courts to jail members of the group for nothing. Make their day-to-day lives intolerable. Throw in some random murder, and the stage is set.
The down-trodden group will be showing up on the shores of the nearest country that has poor relations with the bad place they are leaving.
So [Syria] gets to purge their country of undesirable peoples, Europe gets burdened by the crush of caring for so many, and then the Second Strike hits.
Second Strike?
These refugees are overwhelmingly of one Faith: Islam.
And Islam is clear on the fate of the non-believer. You either convert, become a slave, or are killed as a threat to the Faith. There are no other options.
So what if the Sunni refugees were horribly abused by their Shiite government?
The distinction between a Sunni beheading and a Shiite car-bomb is lost on me.
One is simply more fundamental, the other more accommodating.
But both read the same Koran, both believe the Koran to be the ONLY book that should exist, for everyone, forever.
Strike Two will occur about 2-5 years after the 'problem that started it all' is resolved.
Even if 1 out 100 refugees are radicalized or were 'sleeper agents', that is an Army that has had time to get jobs, become neighbors and friends, know where everything is, and how well it is guarded.
The Third Strike will be when the country that sent out this wave of Soldiers attacks their neighboring countries, forcing an already strained EU/NATO response. Another War, overseas.
Can't win a war on that many fronts.
Agents blowing up vital services [telecom, power and water disruption], massacres, rioting in the streets, political infighting, police strained to breaking, military powerless to stop diffused attacks, war raging overseas.
A country so attacked cannot hold.
EU? Been nice knowing you.
NATO? Good luck!
America, keep your borders tight!
Thursday, September 3, 2015
There is a rash of 'Didn't do nothin' defenses offered up, and some claim this proves that black Americans have something wrong with them. Can't they tell right form wrong, thug-life from real-life?
This is not about race.
In the gangster movies, wasn't there some old Italian matron, weeping as they took her 'good boy' away?
I see no difference.
There is an underlying social thing working here: The 'good boy' never killed, beat or robbed anyone in his own family.
Just like the Cheer-leaders Dad that hides bodies after an accident, the crimes done by your family against others can be forgiven. Right?
I mean, if he killed grandpa, you might turn him in.
Killed a total stranger? There would be a debate about the cover story.
This is not about race.
In the gangster movies, wasn't there some old Italian matron, weeping as they took her 'good boy' away?
I see no difference.
There is an underlying social thing working here: The 'good boy' never killed, beat or robbed anyone in his own family.
Just like the Cheer-leaders Dad that hides bodies after an accident, the crimes done by your family against others can be forgiven. Right?
I mean, if he killed grandpa, you might turn him in.
Killed a total stranger? There would be a debate about the cover story.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
I am feeling better now.
The whole Instructables thing is behind me now.
I know that I have mad-skills, and posting to a site geared toward absolute beginners was a mistake.
Yeah, I can solder. Could I teach you? Definitely.
Would I take the time to create an Article titled "How to Solder"? No.
There are dozens of skills that a Builder has picked over years of 'doing the work'.
Passing on the distilled experience of all those year of to people who are 'just browsing' is a pain.
Drilling, for example.
Drilling Wood takes one skill. The sound, the feel as the drill bites into the wood, the smell of proper cutting versus burning, the tendency of the drill to 'wander' as it cuts through the wood-grain.
Drilling at angles to the grain can guide a drill-bit quite a lot.
More than just 'technique', you have to read the piece of wood, figure out how it wants to be drilled..
Drilling Steel takes a different set of skills. The sights/smell becomes more important than the sound. Hot metal chips, cutting-oil smoking. Knowing when the drill-bit is too sharp to cut cleanly, or too dull to cut at all.
Drilling sheet-metal, or thin stock in general takes another 'skill-set'. Clamping an over-sheet and backing-block to a thin piece of work prior to drilling is its own 'task-list'.
How do you clamp? What kind of clamp? What kind of material for the top-cover or backing-block?
Drilling Brass and some plastics requires a 'scraper' drill-bit. No sharp cutting-edge, but a scraping action that removes flakes of material instead of long curls. Why? Brass is soft enough that a sharp bit 'dives' into the surface, trying to cut more than it really can. This tears the metal, binds and breaks the drill-bit.
Drilling plastics. About 12-18 Chapters on this to do it justice. Acrylic drills very differently than Lexan. Both have similar properties, but deep-drilling [holes deeper than 5 drill-bit diameters is considered very deep in plastics!] concentrates heat in the plastic. The plastic expands when heated. The plastic expands into the hole being drilled!
The drill bit cuts away the expanded plastic. Plastic cools, rough and over-sized hole is the result. Except Acrylic can actually melt onto the drill bit! If that drill-bit stops rotating while in the hole, the plastic solidifies, and the drill bit is now part of your Project.
Cutting fluid is used as a coolant ONLY! Not lubrication, not any other action. If the drill bit comes out of plastic and is hot to the touch, slow down and keep it flooded!
Drilling Stainless Steel. Sometimes Stainless says "No, not cutting today." It does that. Gets too hard to cut, but only if your fist attempt to cut it failed. Called work-hardening.
Stainless alloys are like that. When 'new', they cut and finish nicely. But if the surface gets compacted [shot-peening, hammer-blows, file dragged across the surface backwards, dull tool-bit, too shallow of a cut, being bent...long list] the alloy becomes tool-steel. Just as hard, and sometimes MUCH harder than any of your cutting tools. Handy for making new tools, not so handy for making a spice-rack.
Drilling Aluminum asks the question: Which alloy? Some drill easily, others are gummy and stringy and still others make dust rather than long curls. Each alloy needs different cutting fluids. Cutting fluids. Chemistry. Haz-mat. See where this goes?
A task as simple as "drill a 3/4" hole here" has an entire conversation in the background.
How fast is the drill motor? If the only drill-motor you have is an old Craftsman one-speed, you may need to modify your technique, use a different drill-bit. Consider getting a better drill-motor.
You have a variable-speed drill-press? Then your holes will be better, your work-load much less.
What is the material? This makes a huge difference in type of drill, and how fast to spin that drill [see above], and how much material per second you can safely cut. By safely, I mean safe for the drill-motor, the work-piece and the drill-bit.
Is cutting fluid is needed? Kerosene or very light oil for Brass, dry for Copper, liquid soap for most Aluminum/plastics [unless it fizzes. Then use something else], heavy oils for Steel. A blend of Unicorn sweat, Panda tears [Thank, Tom!] and liquefied optimism is the cutting fluid for Stainless Steel.
How fast [RPM], to cut? Copper cuts very slowly, so the drill-bit turns slow, but with firm pressure.
Some aluminum cuts well at high-speed only. Experience is your guide here.....
How importance is the holes final appearance? Is the hole visible on a panel?
Then it should be 'pretty': Drill through a panel from the 'finished' side. Drill 'break-through' can be ugly!
If the hole MUST be clean on both sides, drill 1/2 way trough from each side! If 'break-through' happens where no one can see it, all is good. Consider pilot-drilling. Small hole through a panel that guides a larger drill.
Counter-sinking to break the edges of the hole, masking the panel-face until all the work is done all help for neat appearance.
Does the finish inside the drilled hole matter? Are you making a tiny steam-engine, and need smooth walls inside the Cylinder? Then get a lathe or a Mill. Or under-drill by a tiny bit, and finish the Cylinder with a Reamer. And that tool needs its own Chapter or two.
Is this a precise and smooth hole, like a bearing? Drill-press. Hell, over-sized the hole, press in a proper bearing sleeve! Replaceable bearing sleeves make far more sense than making a bearing out of a panel. Another Chapter.....
Or does a bolt pass through, and the location/diameter the only important details? Hand-held Black and Decker is fine.
Is the location of the drilled hole the most important thing? Layout very carefully, check the layout after lunch, drill a small pilot-hole [and check that for accuracy!] and then slowly drill the final hole.
If the hole is starting out a little off center, there are ways to 'walk it home' and get it centered before the hole is finished. Hint: metal-cutting chisel...
Do you have to make many parts with identical hole locations? Stack your parts, clamp them down, and drill the stack!
Or consider making a jig. Just a little part that has some way to index your part in a know orientation/location relative to the cutting tool. Each part that fits onto the jig will be drilled with good repeatability. That means they will all be the same. They may not be right if your jig is bad, but they will all be the same.
Jigs can hold Bushings, a kind of bearing, that can be used to guide the drill-bit very precisely.
If your Project needs lots of identical parts, this is one way to go.
Oh, hand-held drill-motors: Accuracy? Level and Plumb drilling? Are your hand-drilled holes perpendicular to the drilled surface? Does it matter?
Lots of hand-helds have levels and other 'aiming tools' built in.
It is better to train your eyes to 'see' a square! How? Look at window-frames, door-frames.
They are square. Practice holding your drill so that a door-jamb is in the background. Line up the drill with the jamb, you are close to square! Practice enough, and 'square drilling' becomes a habit.
Drilled holes do not always pass all the way through!
Bee-blocks, for example, are just a bunch of 'blind' holes, drilled about the same depth. A flag of duct-tape on the drill-bit tells you when you are deep enough.
I know it looks like I am working too hard to prove how I can't teach this stuff.
I CAN teach this stuff, but not on Forums where the assumption is that absolute beginners can read my Article, and come away knowing how to drill, solder, etc.
I went round and round with Instructables Staff on this. I was posting a massive Project, which I had to break into six parts to make for logical divisions of major components.
Each Article linked to the others. There was even an Index so that it was easy to find the Sections.
Each Section covered in depth 'how it works', 'what parts/materials to get', 'assembly order/tips' and lots of measurements. I even listed part numbers and Vendors.
And lots of 'Final Product' pictures.
But Staff was adamant: Each Section needed a 'Soldering How-to', and not as an external link!
And if a Section had "drill here", then there had to be a "How to Drill" add-on.
On and on it went.
Drilling, soldering, cutting, sanding, measuring all needed the 'baby-steps' in clear detail.
One 'how-to' every one of Six Sections. And the suggestion was made "Maybe if each Soldering tutorial was a little different? We don't want our readers feeling like you cut-and-pasted the same tutorial over and over?" They were asking for each Soldering How-to to be written separately!
I do not take photos as I work. Mile-stones I will take pictures of. Major components finished are ready to use? I take LOTS of pictures.
Drilling a hole in a piece of Steel? I can do a 're-enactment' photo, but that is a 'cheat' in my mind.
If I have to start taking staged photos just for the purpose of fulfilling changing Publication Requirements, then I might as well post Articles about how to write an Instructable.
There is an old old adage: That which Knows, cannot Speak. That which Speaks, cannot Know.
This is me with tools in my hands, and parts being built.
No words, just Knowing how to make it work. Numbers become my language: proportions, ratios, sums, differences, products and quotients become my Inner Dialogue.
After the job is done, I have to back-track, figure out what I did.
Hard to form verbal memories when in a non-verbal state.
I have to look at the Parts that seem to appear in my hands for a very long time and try hard to figure out how I made them.
Then comes the really hard part: Translating what I Know into words that Speak to others.
The whole Instructables thing is behind me now.
I know that I have mad-skills, and posting to a site geared toward absolute beginners was a mistake.
Yeah, I can solder. Could I teach you? Definitely.
Would I take the time to create an Article titled "How to Solder"? No.
There are dozens of skills that a Builder has picked over years of 'doing the work'.
Passing on the distilled experience of all those year of to people who are 'just browsing' is a pain.
Drilling, for example.
Drilling Wood takes one skill. The sound, the feel as the drill bites into the wood, the smell of proper cutting versus burning, the tendency of the drill to 'wander' as it cuts through the wood-grain.
Drilling at angles to the grain can guide a drill-bit quite a lot.
More than just 'technique', you have to read the piece of wood, figure out how it wants to be drilled..
Drilling Steel takes a different set of skills. The sights/smell becomes more important than the sound. Hot metal chips, cutting-oil smoking. Knowing when the drill-bit is too sharp to cut cleanly, or too dull to cut at all.
Drilling sheet-metal, or thin stock in general takes another 'skill-set'. Clamping an over-sheet and backing-block to a thin piece of work prior to drilling is its own 'task-list'.
How do you clamp? What kind of clamp? What kind of material for the top-cover or backing-block?
Drilling Brass and some plastics requires a 'scraper' drill-bit. No sharp cutting-edge, but a scraping action that removes flakes of material instead of long curls. Why? Brass is soft enough that a sharp bit 'dives' into the surface, trying to cut more than it really can. This tears the metal, binds and breaks the drill-bit.
Drilling plastics. About 12-18 Chapters on this to do it justice. Acrylic drills very differently than Lexan. Both have similar properties, but deep-drilling [holes deeper than 5 drill-bit diameters is considered very deep in plastics!] concentrates heat in the plastic. The plastic expands when heated. The plastic expands into the hole being drilled!
The drill bit cuts away the expanded plastic. Plastic cools, rough and over-sized hole is the result. Except Acrylic can actually melt onto the drill bit! If that drill-bit stops rotating while in the hole, the plastic solidifies, and the drill bit is now part of your Project.
Cutting fluid is used as a coolant ONLY! Not lubrication, not any other action. If the drill bit comes out of plastic and is hot to the touch, slow down and keep it flooded!
Drilling Stainless Steel. Sometimes Stainless says "No, not cutting today." It does that. Gets too hard to cut, but only if your fist attempt to cut it failed. Called work-hardening.
Stainless alloys are like that. When 'new', they cut and finish nicely. But if the surface gets compacted [shot-peening, hammer-blows, file dragged across the surface backwards, dull tool-bit, too shallow of a cut, being bent...long list] the alloy becomes tool-steel. Just as hard, and sometimes MUCH harder than any of your cutting tools. Handy for making new tools, not so handy for making a spice-rack.
Drilling Aluminum asks the question: Which alloy? Some drill easily, others are gummy and stringy and still others make dust rather than long curls. Each alloy needs different cutting fluids. Cutting fluids. Chemistry. Haz-mat. See where this goes?
A task as simple as "drill a 3/4" hole here" has an entire conversation in the background.
How fast is the drill motor? If the only drill-motor you have is an old Craftsman one-speed, you may need to modify your technique, use a different drill-bit. Consider getting a better drill-motor.
You have a variable-speed drill-press? Then your holes will be better, your work-load much less.
What is the material? This makes a huge difference in type of drill, and how fast to spin that drill [see above], and how much material per second you can safely cut. By safely, I mean safe for the drill-motor, the work-piece and the drill-bit.
Is cutting fluid is needed? Kerosene or very light oil for Brass, dry for Copper, liquid soap for most Aluminum/plastics [unless it fizzes. Then use something else], heavy oils for Steel. A blend of Unicorn sweat, Panda tears [Thank, Tom!] and liquefied optimism is the cutting fluid for Stainless Steel.
How fast [RPM], to cut? Copper cuts very slowly, so the drill-bit turns slow, but with firm pressure.
Some aluminum cuts well at high-speed only. Experience is your guide here.....
How importance is the holes final appearance? Is the hole visible on a panel?
Then it should be 'pretty': Drill through a panel from the 'finished' side. Drill 'break-through' can be ugly!
If the hole MUST be clean on both sides, drill 1/2 way trough from each side! If 'break-through' happens where no one can see it, all is good. Consider pilot-drilling. Small hole through a panel that guides a larger drill.
Counter-sinking to break the edges of the hole, masking the panel-face until all the work is done all help for neat appearance.
Does the finish inside the drilled hole matter? Are you making a tiny steam-engine, and need smooth walls inside the Cylinder? Then get a lathe or a Mill. Or under-drill by a tiny bit, and finish the Cylinder with a Reamer. And that tool needs its own Chapter or two.
Is this a precise and smooth hole, like a bearing? Drill-press. Hell, over-sized the hole, press in a proper bearing sleeve! Replaceable bearing sleeves make far more sense than making a bearing out of a panel. Another Chapter.....
Or does a bolt pass through, and the location/diameter the only important details? Hand-held Black and Decker is fine.
Is the location of the drilled hole the most important thing? Layout very carefully, check the layout after lunch, drill a small pilot-hole [and check that for accuracy!] and then slowly drill the final hole.
If the hole is starting out a little off center, there are ways to 'walk it home' and get it centered before the hole is finished. Hint: metal-cutting chisel...
Do you have to make many parts with identical hole locations? Stack your parts, clamp them down, and drill the stack!
Or consider making a jig. Just a little part that has some way to index your part in a know orientation/location relative to the cutting tool. Each part that fits onto the jig will be drilled with good repeatability. That means they will all be the same. They may not be right if your jig is bad, but they will all be the same.
Jigs can hold Bushings, a kind of bearing, that can be used to guide the drill-bit very precisely.
If your Project needs lots of identical parts, this is one way to go.
Oh, hand-held drill-motors: Accuracy? Level and Plumb drilling? Are your hand-drilled holes perpendicular to the drilled surface? Does it matter?
Lots of hand-helds have levels and other 'aiming tools' built in.
It is better to train your eyes to 'see' a square! How? Look at window-frames, door-frames.
They are square. Practice holding your drill so that a door-jamb is in the background. Line up the drill with the jamb, you are close to square! Practice enough, and 'square drilling' becomes a habit.
Drilled holes do not always pass all the way through!
Bee-blocks, for example, are just a bunch of 'blind' holes, drilled about the same depth. A flag of duct-tape on the drill-bit tells you when you are deep enough.
I know it looks like I am working too hard to prove how I can't teach this stuff.
I CAN teach this stuff, but not on Forums where the assumption is that absolute beginners can read my Article, and come away knowing how to drill, solder, etc.
I went round and round with Instructables Staff on this. I was posting a massive Project, which I had to break into six parts to make for logical divisions of major components.
Each Article linked to the others. There was even an Index so that it was easy to find the Sections.
Each Section covered in depth 'how it works', 'what parts/materials to get', 'assembly order/tips' and lots of measurements. I even listed part numbers and Vendors.
And lots of 'Final Product' pictures.
But Staff was adamant: Each Section needed a 'Soldering How-to', and not as an external link!
And if a Section had "drill here", then there had to be a "How to Drill" add-on.
On and on it went.
Drilling, soldering, cutting, sanding, measuring all needed the 'baby-steps' in clear detail.
One 'how-to' every one of Six Sections. And the suggestion was made "Maybe if each Soldering tutorial was a little different? We don't want our readers feeling like you cut-and-pasted the same tutorial over and over?" They were asking for each Soldering How-to to be written separately!
I do not take photos as I work. Mile-stones I will take pictures of. Major components finished are ready to use? I take LOTS of pictures.
Drilling a hole in a piece of Steel? I can do a 're-enactment' photo, but that is a 'cheat' in my mind.
If I have to start taking staged photos just for the purpose of fulfilling changing Publication Requirements, then I might as well post Articles about how to write an Instructable.
There is an old old adage: That which Knows, cannot Speak. That which Speaks, cannot Know.
This is me with tools in my hands, and parts being built.
No words, just Knowing how to make it work. Numbers become my language: proportions, ratios, sums, differences, products and quotients become my Inner Dialogue.
After the job is done, I have to back-track, figure out what I did.
Hard to form verbal memories when in a non-verbal state.
I have to look at the Parts that seem to appear in my hands for a very long time and try hard to figure out how I made them.
Then comes the really hard part: Translating what I Know into words that Speak to others.
Monday, August 17, 2015
This is the real problem with my ability to communicate: I am constantly evaluating the other person in terms of 'worthiness', based on my own life-experience as a guide!
How unfair!
I have done metal-working stuff for years, and so when I try to help someone drill a hole in a bracket, I am not very good at hiding how inept I think their skills are!
"Really? Who would hold a drill like that?!" "Are you kidding me? Drilling through sheet-metal without a back-up block? Are you crazy?" "Why are you drilling from the back to the front? That can mess up the finish! Dummy."
The preceding quotes are what is running through my head. I usually don't say this stuff, but I can't stop thinking it!
And I am certain that my tone of voice, the words I choose to use, and how I behave in general all indicate what I am thinking.
That is why I am a lousy 'hand-on' teacher. I have trouble remembering not having learned skills yet.
I assume that people who can't do what I can do are stupid, lazy or incompetent.
I always takes me a while to remember: "Oh, wait, this person is 24 years old, and this is her first project of any kind! Of course she needs help with EVERYTHING!"
BTW, that last revelation usually occurs 1-5 weeks after that person has given up on me as a teacher.
This is nothing new. No change in my meds lead to this.
I have been 'that guy' since I was in my twenties.
Yes, I can be the "Go To!" guy to answer questions and the like, but re-read everything above, and ask yourself if you ever want to ask me very many questions...
I am not arguing for my limitations, just trying to be open about them.
Folks have a right to know what kind of nasty old brute they are dealing with.
How unfair!
I have done metal-working stuff for years, and so when I try to help someone drill a hole in a bracket, I am not very good at hiding how inept I think their skills are!
"Really? Who would hold a drill like that?!" "Are you kidding me? Drilling through sheet-metal without a back-up block? Are you crazy?" "Why are you drilling from the back to the front? That can mess up the finish! Dummy."
The preceding quotes are what is running through my head. I usually don't say this stuff, but I can't stop thinking it!
And I am certain that my tone of voice, the words I choose to use, and how I behave in general all indicate what I am thinking.
That is why I am a lousy 'hand-on' teacher. I have trouble remembering not having learned skills yet.
I assume that people who can't do what I can do are stupid, lazy or incompetent.
I always takes me a while to remember: "Oh, wait, this person is 24 years old, and this is her first project of any kind! Of course she needs help with EVERYTHING!"
BTW, that last revelation usually occurs 1-5 weeks after that person has given up on me as a teacher.
This is nothing new. No change in my meds lead to this.
I have been 'that guy' since I was in my twenties.
Yes, I can be the "Go To!" guy to answer questions and the like, but re-read everything above, and ask yourself if you ever want to ask me very many questions...
I am not arguing for my limitations, just trying to be open about them.
Folks have a right to know what kind of nasty old brute they are dealing with.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
I am better now. Really.
I have been going round and round with Instructables, trying to publish, then to realize something: I really can't tell much about how I built my toys.
Here is the rub: I can't always tell you how I made something. Not right away. Not all at once.
When I am working, I go a little aphasic. I lose the ability to speak or understand much of what is said to me. Not the hyper-focus 'did-not-hear-you-too-busy' but loss of language skills in general!
This makes it hard to remember what I did, or in what sequence.
Forming memories is largely the storing of symbols to act as Indexes for images/sounds/feeling of memory.
Without being verbal, I can't form verbal memories of what my hands do!
The other bit is Muscle-memory. We all have something we do that is so ingrained it doesn't even register in our thoughts that we are doing it. Walking, for example. Ever think about every muscle involved? QWOP is hard, try it with 30 keys...
I do LOTS of different tasks in the Projects I work on. Drilling, tapping, soldering, cutting, bending...you get the idea. I have a large 'library' of simple tasks that I can perform while thinking of the next thing to do. And that slips memory even more. I remember thinking about the design/build process and how it evolves, but "How I soldered this part to the other part" is gone. I can re-construct how "I must have done it this way!", but often the living memory of how I did some bit of work is just gone.
And that makes me a poor candidate for presenting stuff.
I can show off pretty pictures of what I made, and there are some 'progress' photos, but nothing from the times I am actually working. Hands too busy, Camera in the way...
Ugh.
I have been going round and round with Instructables, trying to publish, then to realize something: I really can't tell much about how I built my toys.
Here is the rub: I can't always tell you how I made something. Not right away. Not all at once.
When I am working, I go a little aphasic. I lose the ability to speak or understand much of what is said to me. Not the hyper-focus 'did-not-hear-you-too-busy' but loss of language skills in general!
This makes it hard to remember what I did, or in what sequence.
Forming memories is largely the storing of symbols to act as Indexes for images/sounds/feeling of memory.
Without being verbal, I can't form verbal memories of what my hands do!
The other bit is Muscle-memory. We all have something we do that is so ingrained it doesn't even register in our thoughts that we are doing it. Walking, for example. Ever think about every muscle involved? QWOP is hard, try it with 30 keys...
I do LOTS of different tasks in the Projects I work on. Drilling, tapping, soldering, cutting, bending...you get the idea. I have a large 'library' of simple tasks that I can perform while thinking of the next thing to do. And that slips memory even more. I remember thinking about the design/build process and how it evolves, but "How I soldered this part to the other part" is gone. I can re-construct how "I must have done it this way!", but often the living memory of how I did some bit of work is just gone.
And that makes me a poor candidate for presenting stuff.
I can show off pretty pictures of what I made, and there are some 'progress' photos, but nothing from the times I am actually working. Hands too busy, Camera in the way...
Ugh.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Ok, this is a vent/rant!
I post articles on my projects. Sort of a 'look at me' and partly a 'look what can be done!'
I expect some amount of "I don't get it?" or "I did it differently!"
What I was not expecting was spam. Keyword spam, on Instructables.
There is the bit of text going around, faithfully cut-n-pasted over the years, that makes the statement "All solder contains lead. All lead will leach out in flowing water. Hot water carries 10,000 times more lead that cold water." I am paraphrasing, but this text goes on at length with why to 'run your taps' before drinking water from copper pipes.
The source of this text? A Readers Digest article from the 1980's.
Sweat-soldered copper pipe was a 'new thing' back then, and the debate over leaded vs. unleaded solder had just gotten started.
How do I know about the source of this 'article'?
It is making the rounds when the keywords 'solder' or 'soldering' are used on Instructables.
I saw it 4 years ago cropping up on Craft-Distilling boards. Any post with the word 'solder' in it got Spammed by this 'warning'.
I saw it over 10 years ago when I used to post articles about competitive target shooting. 'Lead Warning' post that had nothing to do with air-born lead, everything to do with plumbing. Again, 'lead', 'bullet' or 'shot' would get the same Spam-bot action.
I saw the Original around 20 years ago when I was hanging out in my Dentists office. Yeah, old copy of Readers Digest.
Why does this upset me so much?
Simple: People who do not know are posting information that they do not understand to other people who cannot tell the difference between what is factual and what is not. And these idiots get to feel good about 'posting useful information'.
And the name of the board is "Instructables". Implies that you are getting instructions, right?
Apparently, Johnny Keyclick knows more that people who are actually doing the work.
Well, I say let Johnny keep his little world where everything is 'just so'.
I post articles on my projects. Sort of a 'look at me' and partly a 'look what can be done!'
I expect some amount of "I don't get it?" or "I did it differently!"
What I was not expecting was spam. Keyword spam, on Instructables.
There is the bit of text going around, faithfully cut-n-pasted over the years, that makes the statement "All solder contains lead. All lead will leach out in flowing water. Hot water carries 10,000 times more lead that cold water." I am paraphrasing, but this text goes on at length with why to 'run your taps' before drinking water from copper pipes.
The source of this text? A Readers Digest article from the 1980's.
Sweat-soldered copper pipe was a 'new thing' back then, and the debate over leaded vs. unleaded solder had just gotten started.
How do I know about the source of this 'article'?
It is making the rounds when the keywords 'solder' or 'soldering' are used on Instructables.
I saw it 4 years ago cropping up on Craft-Distilling boards. Any post with the word 'solder' in it got Spammed by this 'warning'.
I saw it over 10 years ago when I used to post articles about competitive target shooting. 'Lead Warning' post that had nothing to do with air-born lead, everything to do with plumbing. Again, 'lead', 'bullet' or 'shot' would get the same Spam-bot action.
I saw the Original around 20 years ago when I was hanging out in my Dentists office. Yeah, old copy of Readers Digest.
Why does this upset me so much?
Simple: People who do not know are posting information that they do not understand to other people who cannot tell the difference between what is factual and what is not. And these idiots get to feel good about 'posting useful information'.
And the name of the board is "Instructables". Implies that you are getting instructions, right?
Apparently, Johnny Keyclick knows more that people who are actually doing the work.
Well, I say let Johnny keep his little world where everything is 'just so'.
Ugh. Head has things, can't make words behave.
Vacuum 'bubble': what makes it look like it extracts energy from from nothing?
Well, this may be due to time not playing along with the expansion of space.
The expanding bubble may only represent space being distorted, and not time within the distortion volume.
Or, time does expand with the bubble, but not 'properly', so the expansion energy is more than should be.
Or, the time that the bubble exists is a 'window' that all the expanding space fits into. All the energy of that space is there, but compressed time-wise?
This is the problem: which thign does what. Is the a soliton like compression going on?
Dang, more questions than answers.
This thing, this Longitudinal Ampere forces thing, has been stuck in my brain since the 1970's!
Arg, I know there is something in there, something significant.
Understanding the how and why of this could give a whole new level of understanding the interactions of energy and matter.
And we would get our flying cars. dammit.
Vacuum 'bubble': what makes it look like it extracts energy from from nothing?
Well, this may be due to time not playing along with the expansion of space.
The expanding bubble may only represent space being distorted, and not time within the distortion volume.
Or, time does expand with the bubble, but not 'properly', so the expansion energy is more than should be.
Or, the time that the bubble exists is a 'window' that all the expanding space fits into. All the energy of that space is there, but compressed time-wise?
This is the problem: which thign does what. Is the a soliton like compression going on?
Dang, more questions than answers.
This thing, this Longitudinal Ampere forces thing, has been stuck in my brain since the 1970's!
Arg, I know there is something in there, something significant.
Understanding the how and why of this could give a whole new level of understanding the interactions of energy and matter.
And we would get our flying cars. dammit.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
What the World needs is a good flying car. Or truck. Maybe remotely-piloted container cargo boxes?
With ElectroDyne units installed, anything could be a flyer.
Yeah, there I go, putting vapor-ware into the propulsion break-though everyone needs.
Serious beans, the sort of over-unity stuff that has been seen, if it can be used well, would not only propel vessels to and fro, but generate some electrical power along the way.
But Greg, don't you think all those 'something for nothing' claims are junk?
Yes, but this one may work.
I won't cite all the experiments with apparent over-unity re: Longitudinal Ampere Forces.
They are easy to look up, and I have managed to replicate a lot of these results.
Water-arc explosions, wire-explosions, arc-repulsion effects.
And yes, more work appears to be done than energy going in.
Where does this apparent over-unity come from?
Well, not sure.
If the repulsion is indeed a momentary inflation in the vacuum, then perhaps this inflation could be creating 'virtual inertia'. The vacuum being suddenly displaced would also see a shift in the vacuum deficits of particles. Those particles would be obligated to accelerate to stay entangled with their deficits. And once accelerated, they would expand outward. Bang, flash, push.
Is energy created, or does inflating the vacuum without first shifting the particles couple energy in such a way as to accelerate mass disproportionally to the energy put into the system?
In other words, directly accelerating matter by 'energizing' the Inertia of the particle, rather than energizing Inertia by pushing on the particle. Inertia-less acceleration, but normal 'coasting'?
Maybe something as cute as making a bias in Brownian motion. If the chaotic jiggling of atoms could be coordinated in a single direction, the object would move.
Need more testing, more equipment.
Good thing all the parts are cheap and no Inobtanium or Cantfindium is needed. Those bits are hard to find.
It is late, I am tired, I have no followers.
This will be a fun read in a few years.
With ElectroDyne units installed, anything could be a flyer.
Yeah, there I go, putting vapor-ware into the propulsion break-though everyone needs.
Serious beans, the sort of over-unity stuff that has been seen, if it can be used well, would not only propel vessels to and fro, but generate some electrical power along the way.
But Greg, don't you think all those 'something for nothing' claims are junk?
Yes, but this one may work.
I won't cite all the experiments with apparent over-unity re: Longitudinal Ampere Forces.
They are easy to look up, and I have managed to replicate a lot of these results.
Water-arc explosions, wire-explosions, arc-repulsion effects.
And yes, more work appears to be done than energy going in.
Where does this apparent over-unity come from?
Well, not sure.
If the repulsion is indeed a momentary inflation in the vacuum, then perhaps this inflation could be creating 'virtual inertia'. The vacuum being suddenly displaced would also see a shift in the vacuum deficits of particles. Those particles would be obligated to accelerate to stay entangled with their deficits. And once accelerated, they would expand outward. Bang, flash, push.
Is energy created, or does inflating the vacuum without first shifting the particles couple energy in such a way as to accelerate mass disproportionally to the energy put into the system?
In other words, directly accelerating matter by 'energizing' the Inertia of the particle, rather than energizing Inertia by pushing on the particle. Inertia-less acceleration, but normal 'coasting'?
Maybe something as cute as making a bias in Brownian motion. If the chaotic jiggling of atoms could be coordinated in a single direction, the object would move.
Need more testing, more equipment.
Good thing all the parts are cheap and no Inobtanium or Cantfindium is needed. Those bits are hard to find.
It is late, I am tired, I have no followers.
This will be a fun read in a few years.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Lots of stuff doing on, very little work with this project.
Particles might be 'bits' of ZPE in the way tiny droplets of alcohol dance on the surface.
Picture this: a droplet of energy that is stable. Electron, proton, neutron.
Their existence is not divorced from ZPE, in fact there is an on-going relationship between particle an the vacuum.
Call it entanglement, as the effects are similar.
The particle creates a sort of vacuum deficit, in effect 'robbing' localized ZPE of some vacuum.
This decrease in density in the vacuum is cumulative; consider gravity. More particles, more masss, more gravity.
It also gives rise to inertia. Weren't expecting that, eh?
The vacuum deficit is centered on the particle, but when the the particle is accelerated, the communication of that change in direction is not instantaneous.
The limiting factor is the speed of light, or more precisely, the speed of EM fields.
When accelerated, the particle moves off-center from the vacuum deficit, which is the force needed to accelerate the mass.
The vacuum deficit is what 'carries' kinetic energy, not the difference in particle/vacuum deficit distance. That distance [and hence resistance to acceleration] normalizes in the absence of acceleration.
As any inertial frame of reference is equally valid, issues like relative velocity become questions of impinging bundles of vacuum deficits dragging along their respective particles.
Is it simple minded to see gravity, mass and acceleration as aspects of the same 'thing', and therefore readily understandable?
Richard Feynman once said that if he could explain inertia, then he could retire and play the bongos on a beach somewhere.
The most basic 'things' in our lives still elude complete understanding.
Magnetism, light, gravity, inertia and radioactivity are all described and predicted in fantastic detail through Science.
When I was 7, my dad gave me an old radio.
I took it apart, of course, but as I did, I made sketches of what I found inside.
Once I had every bit out of the chassis, I tried to figure out what each part was by opening them.
Tubes? Pow! lots of tiny metal bits. More drawings. Capacitors became strips of foil, resistors I used as side-walk pencils.
I was so proud to have reduced an old bit of junk into a dozen of notes that I could use to make my own radio.
If only I could understand what I have drawn so carefully.
A sketch doesn't inform "oh, that has to be an insulator" or "copper conducts too well, use graphite here instead"
Being able to see and record thing is grand, understanding what all the parts do and how they do their job can not come, no matter how long one studies these notes.
Cargo Cults in the Pacific Islands comes to mind.
The point slithers out: Science has been doing a grand job of dissecting the Universe. Take this part out, record the result, put it back, record.
But at some very basic levels, the commonly accepted notion of what this part is, what it does, how it does it, what the part is made of, is unknown.
Science uses magnets for all sorts of stuff, but except for being exceptionally useful and predictable, what IS a magnetic field? Seriously, after all the metaphors are dropped, there are some essentially untestable theories. Why untestable? How do you observe a thing when the observation depends on that thing you are observing?
EM effects [radio, light] use magnetic fields. How to observe magnetism not using magnetism?
Might as well count how many stars before inventing the idea of numbers.
Particles might be 'bits' of ZPE in the way tiny droplets of alcohol dance on the surface.
Picture this: a droplet of energy that is stable. Electron, proton, neutron.
Their existence is not divorced from ZPE, in fact there is an on-going relationship between particle an the vacuum.
Call it entanglement, as the effects are similar.
The particle creates a sort of vacuum deficit, in effect 'robbing' localized ZPE of some vacuum.
This decrease in density in the vacuum is cumulative; consider gravity. More particles, more masss, more gravity.
It also gives rise to inertia. Weren't expecting that, eh?
The vacuum deficit is centered on the particle, but when the the particle is accelerated, the communication of that change in direction is not instantaneous.
The limiting factor is the speed of light, or more precisely, the speed of EM fields.
When accelerated, the particle moves off-center from the vacuum deficit, which is the force needed to accelerate the mass.
The vacuum deficit is what 'carries' kinetic energy, not the difference in particle/vacuum deficit distance. That distance [and hence resistance to acceleration] normalizes in the absence of acceleration.
As any inertial frame of reference is equally valid, issues like relative velocity become questions of impinging bundles of vacuum deficits dragging along their respective particles.
Is it simple minded to see gravity, mass and acceleration as aspects of the same 'thing', and therefore readily understandable?
Richard Feynman once said that if he could explain inertia, then he could retire and play the bongos on a beach somewhere.
The most basic 'things' in our lives still elude complete understanding.
Magnetism, light, gravity, inertia and radioactivity are all described and predicted in fantastic detail through Science.
When I was 7, my dad gave me an old radio.
I took it apart, of course, but as I did, I made sketches of what I found inside.
Once I had every bit out of the chassis, I tried to figure out what each part was by opening them.
Tubes? Pow! lots of tiny metal bits. More drawings. Capacitors became strips of foil, resistors I used as side-walk pencils.
I was so proud to have reduced an old bit of junk into a dozen of notes that I could use to make my own radio.
If only I could understand what I have drawn so carefully.
A sketch doesn't inform "oh, that has to be an insulator" or "copper conducts too well, use graphite here instead"
Being able to see and record thing is grand, understanding what all the parts do and how they do their job can not come, no matter how long one studies these notes.
Cargo Cults in the Pacific Islands comes to mind.
The point slithers out: Science has been doing a grand job of dissecting the Universe. Take this part out, record the result, put it back, record.
But at some very basic levels, the commonly accepted notion of what this part is, what it does, how it does it, what the part is made of, is unknown.
Science uses magnets for all sorts of stuff, but except for being exceptionally useful and predictable, what IS a magnetic field? Seriously, after all the metaphors are dropped, there are some essentially untestable theories. Why untestable? How do you observe a thing when the observation depends on that thing you are observing?
EM effects [radio, light] use magnetic fields. How to observe magnetism not using magnetism?
Might as well count how many stars before inventing the idea of numbers.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Howdy!
Keeping it real, tearing down an old car, parts into a new one. Dirt and grease under the nails...bliss.
Turns out that most stun-guns are pulsed AC! There are output caps, but they just help with the 'snap' at the output.
So I will be going with the old classic: multi-stage voltage multiplier, with a step-up transformer as the input stage.
Thoughts on triggering the CalderaTrode: drill small hole in one of the two 'shrouds', solder in a bit of RG-skinny coaxial cable, with the dielectric protruding into the shroud. The center conductor might be formed into a 'halo' between the upper and lower electrodes. A small Marx generator would fire a pulse into the coax, ionizing the space between the electrodes. Bang!
Keeping it real, tearing down an old car, parts into a new one. Dirt and grease under the nails...bliss.
Turns out that most stun-guns are pulsed AC! There are output caps, but they just help with the 'snap' at the output.
So I will be going with the old classic: multi-stage voltage multiplier, with a step-up transformer as the input stage.
Thoughts on triggering the CalderaTrode: drill small hole in one of the two 'shrouds', solder in a bit of RG-skinny coaxial cable, with the dielectric protruding into the shroud. The center conductor might be formed into a 'halo' between the upper and lower electrodes. A small Marx generator would fire a pulse into the coax, ionizing the space between the electrodes. Bang!
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Hey.
Posted the first installment of TEA Laser stuff on Instructables.
Dang, forgot the link...hold on.
http://www.instructables.com/id/TEA-Laser-on-a-PCB/
That's better.
What is there: Photos of WIP TEA Laser, lots of theory, some how-to tips. Only capacitors and spark-gap CalderaTrodes [they resemble Volcanoes with deep central craters!] are covered, but in good detail..
What is coming next: Power supply [cheap stun-gun and rectifier], Laser channel, charging inductor and making a cabinet for all that High-Joltage stuff.
May look at a triggered arc-gap modification, too.
More later!
Posted the first installment of TEA Laser stuff on Instructables.
Dang, forgot the link...hold on.
http://www.instructables.com/id/TEA-Laser-on-a-PCB/
That's better.
What is there: Photos of WIP TEA Laser, lots of theory, some how-to tips. Only capacitors and spark-gap CalderaTrodes [they resemble Volcanoes with deep central craters!] are covered, but in good detail..
What is coming next: Power supply [cheap stun-gun and rectifier], Laser channel, charging inductor and making a cabinet for all that High-Joltage stuff.
May look at a triggered arc-gap modification, too.
More later!
Friday, June 5, 2015
OK, time to dial it back, get my head clear.
Vacuum Permittivity.
Odd as it may seem, vacuum has a definite electrical impedance, 376 ohms.
But like any dielectric in a capacitor, there are instances where the electrical tension in the dielectric exceeds what the dielectric can handle.
A very sharp voltage spike can cause a capacitor to burst, but not by the typical short-circuit/heating route.
With most dielectrics, there is a slight expansion of the solid in the direction of the electrostatic field.
Simply put, the dielectric swells up with more charge, gets skinny as discharged.
Hit the capacitor with a spike, and the dielectric expands so fast it can fly apart!
Ceramic caps sometimes fail this way.
So, here we go again with the speculation: If you 'spiked' vacuum hard enough, would it 'burst' as well? Or would it briefly expand to absorb the 'spike'?
This is what my design is counting on.
But in all of this, I really do not have any legitimate reason to think this can work.
My training, experience and all the information I can find says "Nope", the energy just isn't there, there is no Aether to push against, physics just doesn't work that way.
So I continue on a plainly hopeless path, but that is not the point.
There are times when you have to challenge what you believe about yourself and everything in your life.
And if setting a goal known to be impossible is foolish, then I shall be joining good company.
I guess this is going to be my "Philosphers Stone".
That magical something that transforms everything, forever.
And yes, I know a metaphor when I see one!
Vacuum Permittivity.
Odd as it may seem, vacuum has a definite electrical impedance, 376 ohms.
But like any dielectric in a capacitor, there are instances where the electrical tension in the dielectric exceeds what the dielectric can handle.
A very sharp voltage spike can cause a capacitor to burst, but not by the typical short-circuit/heating route.
With most dielectrics, there is a slight expansion of the solid in the direction of the electrostatic field.
Simply put, the dielectric swells up with more charge, gets skinny as discharged.
Hit the capacitor with a spike, and the dielectric expands so fast it can fly apart!
Ceramic caps sometimes fail this way.
So, here we go again with the speculation: If you 'spiked' vacuum hard enough, would it 'burst' as well? Or would it briefly expand to absorb the 'spike'?
This is what my design is counting on.
But in all of this, I really do not have any legitimate reason to think this can work.
My training, experience and all the information I can find says "Nope", the energy just isn't there, there is no Aether to push against, physics just doesn't work that way.
So I continue on a plainly hopeless path, but that is not the point.
There are times when you have to challenge what you believe about yourself and everything in your life.
And if setting a goal known to be impossible is foolish, then I shall be joining good company.
I guess this is going to be my "Philosphers Stone".
That magical something that transforms everything, forever.
And yes, I know a metaphor when I see one!
Monday, June 1, 2015
SO why all this weird physics talk?
Experiments need nano-second or shorter pulses, this kind of arc-switch can deliver!
For fun, and to test the switch in a practical way, I am putting together a TEA laser with my spare PCB.
It will be a typical split-plate capacitor + spark-gap arrangement.
I am considering using 4-40 all-thread stock for the discharge electrodes. All those little 'teeth' should give oodles of brushy discharges.
We will see.
Experiments need nano-second or shorter pulses, this kind of arc-switch can deliver!
For fun, and to test the switch in a practical way, I am putting together a TEA laser with my spare PCB.
It will be a typical split-plate capacitor + spark-gap arrangement.
I am considering using 4-40 all-thread stock for the discharge electrodes. All those little 'teeth' should give oodles of brushy discharges.
We will see.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
He, he, he..I lied.
I will posting an Instructable for the Caldera-Trodes.
Better display of the information and all.
The basic steps:
1. Layout the shape for the cone on copper. ConeCad gives radius and span data.
2. Cut out the ends of the strip, and the outside edge. Only rough out the inside edge.
3. Use a file to get the ends exactly right. The outside edge should be pretty close to the line. The ends and outside edge define the geometry of the shroud. Make it right here, or do trimming elsewhere.
4. Needle-nose pliers, crimp the strip at regular intervals to form a cone. Wide end of pliers at wide end of strip.
5. Solder the seam. Carefully bring top and bottom end of the cone to round. A good fit prior to soldering is a must.
6. Slice off the raggedy end of the cone at the right height. Make the top and bottom 'circles' true.
7. Tin the edge of the 1/4 teaspoon measure. Some stainless doesn't like tin/lead solder, so use lead free. Not for ROHS reasons, just compatibility.
8. Solder the cone onto the PCB, alined with pass-through. Use very little solder! Too much solder or too long heating warps PCB.
9. Solder on spoon. Two or three tacks, then flow them together. Take care not to unsolder seam on shroud.
10. Drill itty-bitty [1/16"] hole through the copper, near the spoon end. Vent and clean-out hole.
11. Do the same on the other side of the PCB.
I will post a link pretty soon.
I will posting an Instructable for the Caldera-Trodes.
Better display of the information and all.
The basic steps:
1. Layout the shape for the cone on copper. ConeCad gives radius and span data.
2. Cut out the ends of the strip, and the outside edge. Only rough out the inside edge.
3. Use a file to get the ends exactly right. The outside edge should be pretty close to the line. The ends and outside edge define the geometry of the shroud. Make it right here, or do trimming elsewhere.
4. Needle-nose pliers, crimp the strip at regular intervals to form a cone. Wide end of pliers at wide end of strip.
5. Solder the seam. Carefully bring top and bottom end of the cone to round. A good fit prior to soldering is a must.
6. Slice off the raggedy end of the cone at the right height. Make the top and bottom 'circles' true.
7. Tin the edge of the 1/4 teaspoon measure. Some stainless doesn't like tin/lead solder, so use lead free. Not for ROHS reasons, just compatibility.
8. Solder the cone onto the PCB, alined with pass-through. Use very little solder! Too much solder or too long heating warps PCB.
9. Solder on spoon. Two or three tacks, then flow them together. Take care not to unsolder seam on shroud.
10. Drill itty-bitty [1/16"] hole through the copper, near the spoon end. Vent and clean-out hole.
11. Do the same on the other side of the PCB.
I will post a link pretty soon.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Rant against Michelson/Morley special relativity and all that madness.
I probably am starting to repeat myself when it comes to my message that the mathematical underpinnings of relativity are based on approximations, assumptions and missing terms.
Yes, I am referring to Ampere and the longitudinal forces.
I don't want to write this like a rant, or an exposition about how I am right, and so many that came before 'missed something'.
Truth to be told, I have an advantage when it comes to 'fringe science': I am somewhat crazy.
Being reverent to the Laws of physics, to me, has always seemed optional.
So while I am plagued with doubts [It can't work, Standard Model Says, Can't get something from nothing, wash your hands after going to the bathroom...], I know what myself and others have done, the weird results.
And some of that work, well, it helps to be nuts if you are going to think it all through and not have your head implode. Like what happens in Amperes equations when r [the separation between current carrying elements] gets to be a tiny number, or zero? Everything gets divided by r, so if r = 0, boom.
Next up!
Detailed, step-by-torturous-step how-to make Caldera-Trodes! yay.
I probably am starting to repeat myself when it comes to my message that the mathematical underpinnings of relativity are based on approximations, assumptions and missing terms.
Yes, I am referring to Ampere and the longitudinal forces.
I don't want to write this like a rant, or an exposition about how I am right, and so many that came before 'missed something'.
Truth to be told, I have an advantage when it comes to 'fringe science': I am somewhat crazy.
Being reverent to the Laws of physics, to me, has always seemed optional.
So while I am plagued with doubts [It can't work, Standard Model Says, Can't get something from nothing, wash your hands after going to the bathroom...], I know what myself and others have done, the weird results.
And some of that work, well, it helps to be nuts if you are going to think it all through and not have your head implode. Like what happens in Amperes equations when r [the separation between current carrying elements] gets to be a tiny number, or zero? Everything gets divided by r, so if r = 0, boom.
Next up!
Detailed, step-by-torturous-step how-to make Caldera-Trodes! yay.
And now a little time to rant about Michelson/Morley and how they peed in the punch-bowl.
Review: To test for the Aether [stationary or otherwise], light beams, mirrors, beam splitters and other stuff where set up to see if light speed was sensitive to the proper motion of the apparatus/planet.
Null result has been seen as proof of no Aether, and became the corner stone to build special relativity.
Heaviside, Lorentz, Maxwell and Einstein created a whole new world of physics all right, but did anyone miss one vital bit about the null result?
Each time a beam of light interacts with each of the mirrors, it leaves that mirror at the speed of light.
Each beam getting split is both passing through glass [and going the right speed while doing it!] and emerging at the proper speed, and being partly reflected. See the bit about mirrors and speed of light.
And at the detector, photons are interacting with the electrons in matter, but that interaction in limited to the speed of light.
My point in all this repetition?
All the light beams are going the 'right speed', all the mirrors and lenses are staying in the right places [Lorentz contraction still hypothetical!] and have the right lengths, so of course Null Result!
The Null result was the Null result for the simple reason you can't detect non-accelerating motion using ANY know technology! [The moving thing can't measure it's own movement without referencing something external to itself]
Now if you are accelerating, or rotating [which is acceleration around a center] then bits of light get 'left behind' and that type of motion is easy to spot with this kind of thing.
Does the Aether exist?
Yes, but it has no proper or relative speed in terms of matter/energy.
Speed of light is the rate of energy exchange between systems.
If two systems can only exchange energy at specific rates, limits in the interaction between systems become evident. Light is always going 'the same speed', but maybe that is the 'translation rate'?
This is all highly metaphorical, but I never met a four I didn't like.
Review: To test for the Aether [stationary or otherwise], light beams, mirrors, beam splitters and other stuff where set up to see if light speed was sensitive to the proper motion of the apparatus/planet.
Null result has been seen as proof of no Aether, and became the corner stone to build special relativity.
Heaviside, Lorentz, Maxwell and Einstein created a whole new world of physics all right, but did anyone miss one vital bit about the null result?
Each time a beam of light interacts with each of the mirrors, it leaves that mirror at the speed of light.
Each beam getting split is both passing through glass [and going the right speed while doing it!] and emerging at the proper speed, and being partly reflected. See the bit about mirrors and speed of light.
And at the detector, photons are interacting with the electrons in matter, but that interaction in limited to the speed of light.
My point in all this repetition?
All the light beams are going the 'right speed', all the mirrors and lenses are staying in the right places [Lorentz contraction still hypothetical!] and have the right lengths, so of course Null Result!
The Null result was the Null result for the simple reason you can't detect non-accelerating motion using ANY know technology! [The moving thing can't measure it's own movement without referencing something external to itself]
Now if you are accelerating, or rotating [which is acceleration around a center] then bits of light get 'left behind' and that type of motion is easy to spot with this kind of thing.
Does the Aether exist?
Yes, but it has no proper or relative speed in terms of matter/energy.
Speed of light is the rate of energy exchange between systems.
If two systems can only exchange energy at specific rates, limits in the interaction between systems become evident. Light is always going 'the same speed', but maybe that is the 'translation rate'?
This is all highly metaphorical, but I never met a four I didn't like.
Monday, May 25, 2015
So, more about them pesky particles, the Proton.
Rather than be a surface feature/blemish like the electron, the proton is really something.
No, really, it is something!
That 'something' is a bit of ZPE, compressed/condensed into the thing we know and love as the proton.
But wait, there is more.
This 'knot' of ZPE didn't just plop out of nothing, it came from the vasty sea of ZPE, but it left a 'cavity'.
The knot is not really a separate entity from the ZPE, it is part of the general ZPE field, and the presence of the proton balances the cavity, in terms of total ZPE in the overall region.
OK, imagine the surface of a pond, but there is an arrogant bastard water drop that refuses to join to rest of the water. You see this sometimes in vodka bottles: shake it up, tiny beads dance on the surface. Same idea.
Here is the thing, though. The 'beads' don't just dance on the surface, they displace it, make 'dents' in the surface.
If you have two beads, their 'dents' draw them together. Just like gravity.
The more protons, the more 'dents' in ZPE, the more gravity.
What was the other thing...Inertia!
OK, if a proton 'dents' space/time, and large collections of these dents give rise to gravity, where does that leave inertia?
Well, consider that the proton and the dent are co-located. If the proton moves at a steady rate, so does the dent.
But if the proton is accelerated, then something wierd happens. The proton resists being accelerated!
I don't mean 'speed up' when I say acceleration, I mean change in velocity.
Why would this be?
The proton and then dent are 'linked' in a way where moving the proton moves the dent. But the 'communication' of position is limited to V of C.
Acceleration of the proton would have to accelerate the dent as well, but the dent doesn't 'know' that the proton has changed velocity.
To simplify: It takes force acting on the proton to force it away from its dent, but that same force leads the dent to 'catch up' with the proton.
Greater acceleration required greater force, as the proton-to-dent 'offset' is greater.
Neutrons? A proton that ate an electron. Same other stuff applies.
Good night, and have a tomorrow.
Rather than be a surface feature/blemish like the electron, the proton is really something.
No, really, it is something!
That 'something' is a bit of ZPE, compressed/condensed into the thing we know and love as the proton.
But wait, there is more.
This 'knot' of ZPE didn't just plop out of nothing, it came from the vasty sea of ZPE, but it left a 'cavity'.
The knot is not really a separate entity from the ZPE, it is part of the general ZPE field, and the presence of the proton balances the cavity, in terms of total ZPE in the overall region.
OK, imagine the surface of a pond, but there is an arrogant bastard water drop that refuses to join to rest of the water. You see this sometimes in vodka bottles: shake it up, tiny beads dance on the surface. Same idea.
Here is the thing, though. The 'beads' don't just dance on the surface, they displace it, make 'dents' in the surface.
If you have two beads, their 'dents' draw them together. Just like gravity.
The more protons, the more 'dents' in ZPE, the more gravity.
What was the other thing...Inertia!
OK, if a proton 'dents' space/time, and large collections of these dents give rise to gravity, where does that leave inertia?
Well, consider that the proton and the dent are co-located. If the proton moves at a steady rate, so does the dent.
But if the proton is accelerated, then something wierd happens. The proton resists being accelerated!
I don't mean 'speed up' when I say acceleration, I mean change in velocity.
Why would this be?
The proton and then dent are 'linked' in a way where moving the proton moves the dent. But the 'communication' of position is limited to V of C.
Acceleration of the proton would have to accelerate the dent as well, but the dent doesn't 'know' that the proton has changed velocity.
To simplify: It takes force acting on the proton to force it away from its dent, but that same force leads the dent to 'catch up' with the proton.
Greater acceleration required greater force, as the proton-to-dent 'offset' is greater.
Neutrons? A proton that ate an electron. Same other stuff applies.
Good night, and have a tomorrow.
First off, I want to define 'fundamental particles' as electrons, neutrons and protons.
That's it.
The funky shrapnel that is ionizing radiation are bits and pieces of the fundamentals.
Instability within the nucleus is unfortunate, but I don't have any theories on that yet.
And the weird particles out of high energy collisions? Sparks from throwing alarm clocks at each other at high speed. With enough energy, you can cook up any particle you want. They just don't live very long.
So, electrons first.
Carries a charge, has extremely small mass, is 'distributed' in space [probability defines location].
All photon/matter interactions are mediated by electrons. No exceptions. Almost everything we ever see is valence shell electrons at various energy levels and bondings. Cool.
OK, that is the Classic stuff, greatly simplified.
My turn: Electron is [this gets allegorical] like a bubble on the 'surface' of ZPE. OK, surface isn't quite right, but if the energy level of ZPE is visualized as the surface of a liquid, this starts to work.
So, small bubble on surface of liquid. Mostly open space, very little disturbance in the surface of the liquid, easily moved around by currents. Motion across the surface is electrical current, the effect on the liquid [ripples] is electro-magnetic field. And yes, reversible. Motor/generator.
Note! The electrons in question are not 'in space' but in materials. The electrons in a material are still 'in ZPE'. And it is within the subtle energy differences of the electrons 'group memberships' that help define what that material 'is'.
Group membership? Yeah. Electrons exist in several distinct 'worlds'. ZPE or space/time, and in the worlds of valence [within an atom], bonding [between atoms], quantum energy levels, surface plasmons [metallic reflection]...busy little guys, these electrons.
Given all the things that influence electrons, and how many of those work both ways, it is easy to see how something as simple as intense electrical discharges could effect so many systems.
Not all the effects are seen in all discharges, and rise-time is the culprit.
Full potential of the discharge voltage is realized only with zero current, then as current flows, voltage across the arc-gap begins to fall.
At some point between voltage dropping, and current rising, there must be a point where voltage/current in the arc exceeds some threshold.
More likely, it is the voltage potential just before conduction that breaks vacuum permittivity.
Intense electrostatic fields, like in a capacitor, can cause the dielectric to physically expand. As the dielectric expands, its density [and insulating properties] become less dense, until a breakdown occurs.
If the voltage rise is fast enough, capacitors can literally burst. The plates are moving apart fast enough that they can separate from the dielectric.
If ZPE could be forced to expand, even briefly, it would be experienced as an explosive displacement of matter away from the discharge.
Just like Ampere saw.
Coffee time!
That's it.
The funky shrapnel that is ionizing radiation are bits and pieces of the fundamentals.
Instability within the nucleus is unfortunate, but I don't have any theories on that yet.
And the weird particles out of high energy collisions? Sparks from throwing alarm clocks at each other at high speed. With enough energy, you can cook up any particle you want. They just don't live very long.
So, electrons first.
Carries a charge, has extremely small mass, is 'distributed' in space [probability defines location].
All photon/matter interactions are mediated by electrons. No exceptions. Almost everything we ever see is valence shell electrons at various energy levels and bondings. Cool.
OK, that is the Classic stuff, greatly simplified.
My turn: Electron is [this gets allegorical] like a bubble on the 'surface' of ZPE. OK, surface isn't quite right, but if the energy level of ZPE is visualized as the surface of a liquid, this starts to work.
So, small bubble on surface of liquid. Mostly open space, very little disturbance in the surface of the liquid, easily moved around by currents. Motion across the surface is electrical current, the effect on the liquid [ripples] is electro-magnetic field. And yes, reversible. Motor/generator.
Note! The electrons in question are not 'in space' but in materials. The electrons in a material are still 'in ZPE'. And it is within the subtle energy differences of the electrons 'group memberships' that help define what that material 'is'.
Group membership? Yeah. Electrons exist in several distinct 'worlds'. ZPE or space/time, and in the worlds of valence [within an atom], bonding [between atoms], quantum energy levels, surface plasmons [metallic reflection]...busy little guys, these electrons.
Given all the things that influence electrons, and how many of those work both ways, it is easy to see how something as simple as intense electrical discharges could effect so many systems.
Not all the effects are seen in all discharges, and rise-time is the culprit.
Full potential of the discharge voltage is realized only with zero current, then as current flows, voltage across the arc-gap begins to fall.
At some point between voltage dropping, and current rising, there must be a point where voltage/current in the arc exceeds some threshold.
More likely, it is the voltage potential just before conduction that breaks vacuum permittivity.
Intense electrostatic fields, like in a capacitor, can cause the dielectric to physically expand. As the dielectric expands, its density [and insulating properties] become less dense, until a breakdown occurs.
If the voltage rise is fast enough, capacitors can literally burst. The plates are moving apart fast enough that they can separate from the dielectric.
If ZPE could be forced to expand, even briefly, it would be experienced as an explosive displacement of matter away from the discharge.
Just like Ampere saw.
Coffee time!
Sunday, May 24, 2015
I just found out the worst thing about the IntersWeb: going back and reading your own drivel!
Ewww.
Off to get a battery-powered shock-box module. 20 KV, DC, tiny current, but I am charging up a 1.2 nF capacitor!
Stay tuned, as next update will spill the beans on my loopy "fundamental particles as 'snags' in the ZPE field" theory of gravity, inertia, light, EM fields and matter all tied into one 'thing'.
He, he, he... And no, that has nothing to do with helium.
Ewww.
Off to get a battery-powered shock-box module. 20 KV, DC, tiny current, but I am charging up a 1.2 nF capacitor!
Stay tuned, as next update will spill the beans on my loopy "fundamental particles as 'snags' in the ZPE field" theory of gravity, inertia, light, EM fields and matter all tied into one 'thing'.
He, he, he... And no, that has nothing to do with helium.
Ok, a look at why I think huge power is not needed for the repulsive reaction.
The electrode hammering noted by Ampere and others is an extreme example of the repulsive reaction, and I am sure that effect can be scaled down to the point where the electrodes aren't killed instantly.
Here goes: Looking at the working arc-gap at the moment the voltage is rising, there is a growing electrical gradient between the electrodes. The air has not yet ionized, no current yet flows. The voltage builds and builds until the ionization/arcing begins. Very quickly, the arc becomes a low-resistance pathway for enormous current flow, which heats the ionized air to high temperatures. Flash, BANG!
But at what point in the above does the 'hammering' or repulsive effect occur?
My bet is on the slender bit between "voltage rising" and "arcing".
Think of the vacuum, will you please? Won't someone think of the vacuum!
It has needs, it has values, it has electrical properties. Huh? Who would have though that empty space has electrical properties? Is does, so there.
Vacuum permittivity, to be exact.
It is the capability of the vacuum to permit Electric field lines. More or less, it sets a limit on electric field density. If I read the back of the package right, there should be a limit. Volume, density, time, volts per unit...
Hmmm.
Tiny gap between rods, fast rise-time to 'stay ahead' of hot-arcing.
Is vacuum permittivity being violated? Not like punching a hole in a dielectric, more like the way an optical fiber can rupture with a powerful laser pulse. [solitons]
What if tweaking vacuum permittivity caused there to be more vacuum?
[And at this point in the narrative, the Author is safely assumed to have lost his mind. Thank you, and good night]
More vacuum, as in more space/time.
Simple version: electrical field tension builds until initial conduction. Electrical current 'pushes' space/time out of the way, until resistance of arc drops voltage gradient below some threshold.
[That should stir them up back home! I need sleep.]
Less Simple version: Same as above, but the permittivity violation results in extra space/time being created to accomodate the excess field lines. Once the field lines are gone [voltage gradient drops as resistance drops], the extra space/time ceases to be, the 'shove' exerted by the space/time bubble stops, but there is no rebound. [weak. needs work. Think, man, think! Saknussemm made it this far with a Q-tip and a 17 ounces of brass dust! ]
Why low-power threshold is important!
If a low-end for the reaction is found, say only a few milli-Newtons, this is good!
A low-power system will not eat the electrodes, and it can be run at high cyclic rates.
Five thousands pulses a second, 0.005 newtons each, hey, propulsion!
Personal aside: I have worked/played with electrical and electronic stuff most of my life.
I can glance at a schematic, and 'see' the AC and DC pathways. Antenna design is like music to me.
So I have to say this: I do not always like the implications of this work.
Persistent doubts remain.
Are the researchers all 'legit'? Are claims being inflated? Are 'they' keeping the truth from us? [tin foiling!]
No, the doubts I have are simple and sound: Laws of physics, Conservation of Energy.
TANSTAAFL
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
I am excited at the possibilities, but ground-down by my attachment to reality.
Need a new reality.
The electrode hammering noted by Ampere and others is an extreme example of the repulsive reaction, and I am sure that effect can be scaled down to the point where the electrodes aren't killed instantly.
Here goes: Looking at the working arc-gap at the moment the voltage is rising, there is a growing electrical gradient between the electrodes. The air has not yet ionized, no current yet flows. The voltage builds and builds until the ionization/arcing begins. Very quickly, the arc becomes a low-resistance pathway for enormous current flow, which heats the ionized air to high temperatures. Flash, BANG!
But at what point in the above does the 'hammering' or repulsive effect occur?
My bet is on the slender bit between "voltage rising" and "arcing".
Think of the vacuum, will you please? Won't someone think of the vacuum!
It has needs, it has values, it has electrical properties. Huh? Who would have though that empty space has electrical properties? Is does, so there.
Vacuum permittivity, to be exact.
It is the capability of the vacuum to permit Electric field lines. More or less, it sets a limit on electric field density. If I read the back of the package right, there should be a limit. Volume, density, time, volts per unit...
Hmmm.
Tiny gap between rods, fast rise-time to 'stay ahead' of hot-arcing.
Is vacuum permittivity being violated? Not like punching a hole in a dielectric, more like the way an optical fiber can rupture with a powerful laser pulse. [solitons]
What if tweaking vacuum permittivity caused there to be more vacuum?
[And at this point in the narrative, the Author is safely assumed to have lost his mind. Thank you, and good night]
More vacuum, as in more space/time.
Simple version: electrical field tension builds until initial conduction. Electrical current 'pushes' space/time out of the way, until resistance of arc drops voltage gradient below some threshold.
[That should stir them up back home! I need sleep.]
Less Simple version: Same as above, but the permittivity violation results in extra space/time being created to accomodate the excess field lines. Once the field lines are gone [voltage gradient drops as resistance drops], the extra space/time ceases to be, the 'shove' exerted by the space/time bubble stops, but there is no rebound. [weak. needs work. Think, man, think! Saknussemm made it this far with a Q-tip and a 17 ounces of brass dust! ]
Why low-power threshold is important!
If a low-end for the reaction is found, say only a few milli-Newtons, this is good!
A low-power system will not eat the electrodes, and it can be run at high cyclic rates.
Five thousands pulses a second, 0.005 newtons each, hey, propulsion!
Personal aside: I have worked/played with electrical and electronic stuff most of my life.
I can glance at a schematic, and 'see' the AC and DC pathways. Antenna design is like music to me.
So I have to say this: I do not always like the implications of this work.
Persistent doubts remain.
Are the researchers all 'legit'? Are claims being inflated? Are 'they' keeping the truth from us? [tin foiling!]
No, the doubts I have are simple and sound: Laws of physics, Conservation of Energy.
TANSTAAFL
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
I am excited at the possibilities, but ground-down by my attachment to reality.
Need a new reality.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
First up, a cheeky contender for Arc-Switch, as visualized by Blender.
The upper and lower chrome-bits are 1/4 teaspoon measures. Stainless steel, about 1.5mm thick metal.
The arc-switch is in cross-section. The hole in the PCB passes the arc, the copper shroud supporting the electrodes is soldered directly to the PCB copper.
Scale? The arc-length is about 3/8", or around 8mm.
PCB is 6" x 9", 1/32" FR4, 1oz. copper cladding.
Here we see the 'top' traces on the PCB. 1/4" edge border, 1/2" A-B separation.
And here is the ground-plane.
Shroud soldered onto upper traces. Shroud pattern artwork courtesy of "ConeCalc", freeware.
And here we witness my God-like soldering skills. Spoon-trode soldered into shroud.
Caldera-trode? Volcano-trode? Fun stuff.
View of the top electrode, from the ground-plane. If you look real close, the solder-seam is visible.
Well, there are more photos to take, notes to crib, rumors to quell.
Laters.
The upper and lower chrome-bits are 1/4 teaspoon measures. Stainless steel, about 1.5mm thick metal.
The arc-switch is in cross-section. The hole in the PCB passes the arc, the copper shroud supporting the electrodes is soldered directly to the PCB copper.
Scale? The arc-length is about 3/8", or around 8mm.
PCB is 6" x 9", 1/32" FR4, 1oz. copper cladding.
Caldera-trode? Volcano-trode? Fun stuff.
Laters.
Hey.
While the title promises "low-inductance bla bla bla", I have been a big tease so far!
The high-speed, low-inductance switch is a key part of what I am working on, and all this messy preamble serves to do is give things a context.
Goals for this switch:
1. Fast. Duh. Arc-switches are the fastest power-switching technology known.
2. Low inductance. See also Fast Switch.
3. Physically robust. No weak-tea falling apart nonsense.
4. Cheap. Like me, no budget, so gotta be home-made.
5. No Inobtanium, Cantfindium or Whatthehellamine. No fair if my cool design relies on "An Interositer capable of laying a 6 lane concrete highway at 70 miles an hour!" "This Island Earth", comment made by Scientist while reading Alien Electronics catalog.
6. High repetition rate. Because repeating faster is better.
7. Small design. No fun if it is the biggest part, eh?
8. PCB mounted. As the PCB is the basis of the capacitors, having the switch integrated into the capacitor speeds things up.
9, Enclosed arc-gap. Arc-gaps are loud [electronically and acoustically] and emit tons of UV radiation. Enclosing the arc-gap makes for nicer neighbors.
10. Maintenance free. Like they said just before the Coroners Inquest, Remains to be seen. See Enclosed Arc gap.
What I am doing with this dream-switch?
TEA laser, because I can.
Water-arc explosions.
Water-arc explosion mediated chemistry/transmutation.
Thin-film explosions.
Bending the rules of time and space.
Making the flying car they have been promising us since the 1950's.
Killing the Standard Model.
Getting humanity off of this rock.
Yeah, time to see my Doctor...
While the title promises "low-inductance bla bla bla", I have been a big tease so far!
The high-speed, low-inductance switch is a key part of what I am working on, and all this messy preamble serves to do is give things a context.
Goals for this switch:
1. Fast. Duh. Arc-switches are the fastest power-switching technology known.
2. Low inductance. See also Fast Switch.
3. Physically robust. No weak-tea falling apart nonsense.
4. Cheap. Like me, no budget, so gotta be home-made.
5. No Inobtanium, Cantfindium or Whatthehellamine. No fair if my cool design relies on "An Interositer capable of laying a 6 lane concrete highway at 70 miles an hour!" "This Island Earth", comment made by Scientist while reading Alien Electronics catalog.
6. High repetition rate. Because repeating faster is better.
7. Small design. No fun if it is the biggest part, eh?
8. PCB mounted. As the PCB is the basis of the capacitors, having the switch integrated into the capacitor speeds things up.
9, Enclosed arc-gap. Arc-gaps are loud [electronically and acoustically] and emit tons of UV radiation. Enclosing the arc-gap makes for nicer neighbors.
10. Maintenance free. Like they said just before the Coroners Inquest, Remains to be seen. See Enclosed Arc gap.
What I am doing with this dream-switch?
TEA laser, because I can.
Water-arc explosions.
Water-arc explosion mediated chemistry/transmutation.
Thin-film explosions.
Bending the rules of time and space.
Making the flying car they have been promising us since the 1950's.
Killing the Standard Model.
Getting humanity off of this rock.
Yeah, time to see my Doctor...
OK, I have some kind of intent sorted out.
While my short-term goal is a flying car, since Popular Mechanics can't deliver, it is up to me!
ZPE is the ground-state, particles like electrons, protons and neutrons are the fundamental particles.
The short-live particles are 'splinters', not enough/too much energy to land on an island of stability.
Electrons are like a bubble on the surface of water. Protons/neutrons more like Leidenfrost droplets, dancing on the surface, while causing little depressions. We call big collections of these depressions gravity, BTW.
Photons are over-achieving electrons, heads all spinning [wavelength] while they dance on their own wake-field.
BTW, that Michelson/Morely experiment?
Could never had detected motion, here is why.
As light interacts with a mirror, the reflected beam HAS to be going the speed of light, relative to the surface of the mirror. Likewise, light passing through a lens or 1/4 wave plate would of course emerge from that glass that V of C. Any time light touches anything, that interaction occurs at the same rate.
The velocity of light is simply the exchange rate of energy between matter and photons.
This is why interferometers cannot detect motion, only acceleration.
Lorentz and his famous contraction were based on Maxwell/Heaviside, others. But Maxwell is an approximation, missing terms that simple experiments can show to be real.
Amperes equations easily predict phenomena that Maxwell says can't happen.
Try using Maxwell with two wires, end-to-end [zero offset distance], current all flowing same direction. Result would be zero.
With Ampere, a non-zero result. And depending on the current, the non-zero forces can break equipment.
And the whole contraction thing was too good to pass up: it explained the Null result, fixed some things with electron packets.
When the same tool works in several areas, the tendency is to make it work everywhere.
By the time Quantum was getting its feet on the ground, a contraction formula for just about everything except Good Intentions existed.
So why all this work to fix the Standard Model, when the mortar used in the foundation is failing?
While my short-term goal is a flying car, since Popular Mechanics can't deliver, it is up to me!
ZPE is the ground-state, particles like electrons, protons and neutrons are the fundamental particles.
The short-live particles are 'splinters', not enough/too much energy to land on an island of stability.
Electrons are like a bubble on the surface of water. Protons/neutrons more like Leidenfrost droplets, dancing on the surface, while causing little depressions. We call big collections of these depressions gravity, BTW.
Photons are over-achieving electrons, heads all spinning [wavelength] while they dance on their own wake-field.
BTW, that Michelson/Morely experiment?
Could never had detected motion, here is why.
As light interacts with a mirror, the reflected beam HAS to be going the speed of light, relative to the surface of the mirror. Likewise, light passing through a lens or 1/4 wave plate would of course emerge from that glass that V of C. Any time light touches anything, that interaction occurs at the same rate.
The velocity of light is simply the exchange rate of energy between matter and photons.
This is why interferometers cannot detect motion, only acceleration.
Lorentz and his famous contraction were based on Maxwell/Heaviside, others. But Maxwell is an approximation, missing terms that simple experiments can show to be real.
Amperes equations easily predict phenomena that Maxwell says can't happen.
Try using Maxwell with two wires, end-to-end [zero offset distance], current all flowing same direction. Result would be zero.
With Ampere, a non-zero result. And depending on the current, the non-zero forces can break equipment.
And the whole contraction thing was too good to pass up: it explained the Null result, fixed some things with electron packets.
When the same tool works in several areas, the tendency is to make it work everywhere.
By the time Quantum was getting its feet on the ground, a contraction formula for just about everything except Good Intentions existed.
So why all this work to fix the Standard Model, when the mortar used in the foundation is failing?
Friday, May 22, 2015
Hello!
I have no idea what I am doing with a Blog, but I lose my notes all the time.
Harder to misplace the internet.
Longitudinal Ampere Forces. Old technology, little understood.
While there are many incarnations of this force, my efforts will be focusing on short-arc repulsion effects.
Water-arc explosions, exploding wires/films and the like will get separate treatments.
In essensce, high-energy electrical discharges can result in immense physical forces being generated.
I say immense forces, but in the context of very tiny physical phenomenon exerting a large force.
Ampere conducted experiments with high currents, and moderate voltages. Much of what we know of the relationship of current, magnetic fields and forces.
One odd experiment used two very pointy copper electrodes, almost touching each other.
Ampere wanted to 'concentrate' an arc into a tiny volume, to see what would happen.
The electrodes [copper rods] were driven apart violently, the tips mushroomed. As if struck by a hammer-blow.
The experiment was finicky: the voltage range, the size of electrodes, even the humidity.
The one factor that had the biggest effect on the result was switching time.
A slow rise-time would just melt or vaporize the copper tips.
A fairly fast [mouse-trap switch, in oil-bath] switch would sometimes work.
The fastest switches, arc-gap types, gave the most consistent results.
Looking at the various repulsion/explosion experiments, I began to consider why the explosive exist in the first place.
Does an electrical discharge exerted some sort of force? Volume? Amperes equations accounted for part of it, but some experiments were getting 'over unity' results.
I get a real icky feeling when I read 'over unity'. I think fraud, error or just bad notes.
I was ready to dismiss the whole thing, then I looked at the numbers.
A team had used a capacitor that could store 2500 joules, and the 35 joules worth of 'work' done by the arc explosion [mechanical work, heat, light, sound] looks pretty pathetic.
But then looking closer, the residual charge on the capacitor suggests that only about 7 joules were actually expended in the 'shot'.
Hmmm, says I.
I was not the only one to see such weird results.
But no one seemed able to capture the energy from the shot.
What if ZPE was involved? I know, that is like asking "Does my fat makes these jeans look ass?"
Everyone in the 'alternate energy' camp runs to ZPE when something funky goes down, but chill, there is a good ending.
I use ZPE in the same way others might say space/time, Aether, whatever.
The 'instantansous' conditions inside the arc are fun: thousands of volts across a tiny gap, millions of amps, billions of watts, all in a volume less than a microliter.
True, these sorts of conditions last only a fraction of a nano-second, but what if that is enough to 'inflate' a bit of space/time?
There is a theoretical equivalency between a volume of space/time and Energy. Like E=MC^2, except different.
So...does that discharge have enough energy to make a short-lived 'bubble' of extra ZPE?
Why do I ask all these ques....never mind.
If the discharge inflates space/time, the 'current' space/time [which contains all our stuff..and thangs] is shoved aside by the expanding 'bubble'. The thangs in our space/time get shoved aside, since they are 'pinned' to our space/time. Yes, when the bubble 'bursts', there is no 'suck-back'; the thing that was no longer is, can't exert a vacuum without a vacuum. The things set in motion, remain in motion.
This is where I am now, investigating the following:
1. Minimum energy level to make 'bubbles'
2. Create electrodes capable of resisting erosion from arcing. See #1!
3. See if it possible to make arc discharge path 'bend'.
4. Vector additions, electrode 'recoil', discharge path push.
5. Thruster longevity testing.
I have no idea what I am doing with a Blog, but I lose my notes all the time.
Harder to misplace the internet.
Longitudinal Ampere Forces. Old technology, little understood.
While there are many incarnations of this force, my efforts will be focusing on short-arc repulsion effects.
Water-arc explosions, exploding wires/films and the like will get separate treatments.
In essensce, high-energy electrical discharges can result in immense physical forces being generated.
I say immense forces, but in the context of very tiny physical phenomenon exerting a large force.
Ampere conducted experiments with high currents, and moderate voltages. Much of what we know of the relationship of current, magnetic fields and forces.
One odd experiment used two very pointy copper electrodes, almost touching each other.
Ampere wanted to 'concentrate' an arc into a tiny volume, to see what would happen.
The electrodes [copper rods] were driven apart violently, the tips mushroomed. As if struck by a hammer-blow.
The experiment was finicky: the voltage range, the size of electrodes, even the humidity.
The one factor that had the biggest effect on the result was switching time.
A slow rise-time would just melt or vaporize the copper tips.
A fairly fast [mouse-trap switch, in oil-bath] switch would sometimes work.
The fastest switches, arc-gap types, gave the most consistent results.
Looking at the various repulsion/explosion experiments, I began to consider why the explosive exist in the first place.
Does an electrical discharge exerted some sort of force? Volume? Amperes equations accounted for part of it, but some experiments were getting 'over unity' results.
I get a real icky feeling when I read 'over unity'. I think fraud, error or just bad notes.
I was ready to dismiss the whole thing, then I looked at the numbers.
A team had used a capacitor that could store 2500 joules, and the 35 joules worth of 'work' done by the arc explosion [mechanical work, heat, light, sound] looks pretty pathetic.
But then looking closer, the residual charge on the capacitor suggests that only about 7 joules were actually expended in the 'shot'.
Hmmm, says I.
I was not the only one to see such weird results.
But no one seemed able to capture the energy from the shot.
What if ZPE was involved? I know, that is like asking "Does my fat makes these jeans look ass?"
Everyone in the 'alternate energy' camp runs to ZPE when something funky goes down, but chill, there is a good ending.
I use ZPE in the same way others might say space/time, Aether, whatever.
The 'instantansous' conditions inside the arc are fun: thousands of volts across a tiny gap, millions of amps, billions of watts, all in a volume less than a microliter.
True, these sorts of conditions last only a fraction of a nano-second, but what if that is enough to 'inflate' a bit of space/time?
There is a theoretical equivalency between a volume of space/time and Energy. Like E=MC^2, except different.
So...does that discharge have enough energy to make a short-lived 'bubble' of extra ZPE?
Why do I ask all these ques....never mind.
If the discharge inflates space/time, the 'current' space/time [which contains all our stuff..and thangs] is shoved aside by the expanding 'bubble'. The thangs in our space/time get shoved aside, since they are 'pinned' to our space/time. Yes, when the bubble 'bursts', there is no 'suck-back'; the thing that was no longer is, can't exert a vacuum without a vacuum. The things set in motion, remain in motion.
This is where I am now, investigating the following:
1. Minimum energy level to make 'bubbles'
2. Create electrodes capable of resisting erosion from arcing. See #1!
3. See if it possible to make arc discharge path 'bend'.
4. Vector additions, electrode 'recoil', discharge path push.
5. Thruster longevity testing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)