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'.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)