[AaronB]

Seems like an interesting project. They have some impressive names on their management team, which gives a favorable impression by association. However, their claim of energy production by sending the hydrogen’s electron to a theoretically impossible level will have to be verified. If it is true, that would be very neat. It would open up new areas of physics and chemistry. On this technology, I’ll just have to wait and see.

[AaronB]

Claudio, this is actually a good idea, and effectively illustrated. Wave-powered generators have to be able to compensate for tidal rises and falls. Either the whole system has to adjust with the tides, or it has to convert the wave motion to an independent medium or direction. I’m not sure how the hydrospiral would compensate for the tides.

[AaronB]

The plan is to place the generators as near to the demand as feasible. Personally, I think we should turn offshore oil platforms into improved habitats for sea life (under water) and cell phone towers for boat traffic (above water). Nothing worse than losing a call when you’re floating across the Gulf of Mexico.

[AaronB]

You don’t happen to work for the military-industrial complex, do you??? Maybe you should.

[AaronB]

Adam,
Sounds like you are looking for more detailed information. Most people have a hard time digesting it, but if you want to give it a try, see Technical Paper I and II on the main FFS page, paying close attention to the references at the end. There is no “proof” that this will work, only indicators. Here are some of those indicators: the DPF is a known fusion device, scaling laws based on previous experiments indicate the target range we need in the next experiment, and the magnetic field effect will probably play a significant role in lessening radiation losses.
Fusion generators are a futuristic dream at this point, like in Back to the Future. However, the basic principles are pretty well understood. They are the same as an internal combustion engine: fuel, compression, ignition, time to react, extracting/converting the released energy into a useable form, and eliminating waste. We just need to increase the efficiency of each step in order to come out with a final net gain. There is no question about whether fusion is going on. It is only a matter of increasing the efficiency. You asked if an investor would rather go for the old-reliable investment (fission) or the long-shot gamble (fusion). While the government may not be willing to take the risk, I am. The proof will come in the success or failure of the next experiment.

[AaronB]

Happy, to answer your original questions, I would agree that everything is energy in some form, but not all energy is electrical. Further, gravity is a very weak force, and it seems to be linked only to mass, not electromagnetism, so an absolute link is difficult to establish. I’m not sure what you mean with your idea of a connection between the mind and Universal discoveries, other than it takes a conscious, intelligent, sensing being that can establish cause-effect relationships in order to make those Universal discoveries. The fact that there is a universal law out there has little to do with our awareness of it, until someone is in a position to perceive it and take advantage of it. The concept of flight doesn’t mean anything to an amoeba, nor is it (probably) even possible for that amoeba to “think” about stuff like that since it doesn’t have a “mind”. The mind is only able to operate within a brain (as far as we know), and since amoebas don’t have brains as we know them, it is impossible for them to make and retain Universal discoveries. With that said, the amoeba is still able to biologically take advantage of universal laws simply because of its construction. Simple reptilian brains and mammalian brains were incredible advances, but until “humans” developed the higher brain structure, Universal discoveries were about as significant as Pavlovian conditioning. With the higher brain construct, advanced thoughts could occur. Higher degrees of Universal discoveries could be made, and eventually recorded for the next generations to build upon. This is where we find ourselves.

Intuition has definitely had its place in the great discoveries of the past, and it certainly will in the future. Scientists do value intuition in research, but it must be built upon solid understanding or it will not be appreciated or used. Intuition cannot substitute for the scientific method, but it can certainly assist in the early stages of hypothesizing and further tweaking. This is the key to understanding the difference between reality and perception and imagination. Reality is the way things are. Imagination can lead to reality after a fair amount of focused effort is applied, but it is not reality. Perception is one limited snapshot of relative reality, but it is not the whole picture, and it is often interpreted incorrectly.

If you can intuitively figure out a way to create free energy from electricity and gravity, more power to you. However, from my limited perspective, I prefer to concentrate on focusing my limited brain/mind on Universal discoveries based on known laws. Focus Fusion does that for me, and it is close enough to the cutting edge of science to leave room for intuition as a potential contributor. I’m sure there are a lot of discoveries yet to be made. We live in a fantastic age of discovery, and we are just now seeing the tip of the genetic, electronic and robotic icebergs. Intuition backed by good science will certainly make the next 1000 years very interesting!

[AaronB]

Consider this quote by Wilbur Wright:

[AaronB]

Mark,

You have obviously given this a lot more thought than I have. It was not my intention to promote an infinite universe of infinite age with infinite matter. Those are just the assumptions of Olbers’ paradox. Personally, I think we are just beginning to understand the universe we are living in. 100 years ago, we were just beginning to build telescopes that allowed us to see the closest galaxies with any clarity. A lot has changed since then. I suspect that in another 100 years, cosmology will have many new telescopes and observations at its disposal, so the theories will be very different. I’m not claiming to know the answer. I just like to point out that when people make theories or claim paradoxes, they need to take into account all of the observed or logical information before making that claim. IMHO, it is best to avoid using imaginary, unobserved phenomen as a basis for conclusions and decisions. Let the theory fit the observation, and not the other way around. Work from what you know, not what you don’t know.

Here’s a wild thought on redshift. What if the “fabric” of the universe is pulled tighter by the creation of matter (bunching and knotting), so that in an area thick with matter, the fabric is pulled tighter? That would explain gravitational attraction between all particles, but it would also create a situation where the fabric in the center of the known (populated) universe would be slightly tighter than the fabric out by the most distant galaxies on the edge of the populated area. Light created in these most distant galaxies would have to speed up as it entered the tighter fabric where we reside, and so the wavelength would drop in proportion to the tightness of the fabric where it was created (redshift). I guess magnetism would then be the direction of twist in the creation of the particles, and photons would be the “plinking” of the fabric strings. Antimatter fusion would be the counter-twisted particles unwinding themselves back into the fabric, sending off high “plinking” energy. Matter/energy conversion? I suppose that would explain GR effects too as knotted particles approached the speed of wave propogation in the fabric. They would get squished in the direction of travel. Hmmm, unified theory + redshift explanation all before my morning shower? Can’t be. I should go back to bed.

[AaronB]

I’m enjoying this discussion and have learned a lot. A thought came to me as I studied up on Olbers’ paradox. We’ll call this Aaron’s Paradox. Instead of assuming that I will see a star in any direction that I look, let’s assume that I’ll see a dust cloud in any direction that I look. In the same line of reasoning, wouldn’t we be able to conclude that the universe would be dark? It seems to me that if the universe was infinite, with relatively uniform distribution of both stars AND dust clouds, and that they were in a relatively uniform ratio, then you could use a cluster of galaxies and surrounding space as a representation of the whole universe. In Olbers’ paradox, it is claimed that the dust cloud would eventually heat up from all of the light coming in and re-radiate it at stellar temperatures. It seems to me that the temperature of the dust cloud would be proportional to the number of active stars and intensity of light divided by the volume of space and mass of the dust clouds and non-shining matter. I suppose that eventually the large dust clouds and interspacial gases would heat up, but only a small bit, like maybe 3 degrees K. Oh wait, that’s the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Never mind.

[AaronB]

You said:
Quantum of light, Spiritual particle, which had created us, turned out to be under control
of the material existence. However, the spiritual particle aspires to establish its supremacy
over material nature…
We pray the GOD and we do not realize that HE is inside us.
Each of us carries in himself the SPIRITUAL PARTICLE
(QUANTUM OF LIGHT – AN ELECTRON).
But we do not realize that HE is inside us.
Behind the habitual forces of nature there is one force hidden – a spiritual one (h – e).
But ITS action is almost completely disguised with the other forces
(mechanical, electromagnetic, nuclear, chemical and others),
therefore it remains unnoticed in an ordinary processes.
* * *
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis.
In a usual daily life all we do is done logically, under an influence of our feelings.
On the other hand, in a religious practice we learn to perceive and to operate:
1) Without the participation of the sense organs.
2) Without the participation of the logic mental processes.
When these conditions will be created, then the opportunity to operate will be given
to a QUANTUM OF LIGHT (AN ELECTRON), to OUR DIVINE ESSENCE…
We will acquire new forces, new abilities.
An electron’s mass is 10^-28gr . The size is 10^-13sm. A charge is 10^-19k .
With these characteristics it is hard for IT to appear.
Therefore it is clear, why we don’t know IT in our ordinary life.

Israel,
I’m trying to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that there is a single electron (or photon?), the spiritual particle, somewhere in each of our brains that is an antenna-like receiver for divine transmissions? And we can acquire new forces and abilities by listening to it?

[AaronB]

Hello isreal,
I’m curious to know how you will take this bouquet of formulas and paint the picture of creating the Existence. How do you answer your original question: How does zero information further arrive to a very high informational level? Perhaps you explained it, but I am not very smart. Please explain again in simple terms that I can understand. Thank you.

[AaronB]

isreal,

Philosophers, theologians, scientists and normal people have all questioned the relationship of consciousness to its physical carriers. Buckminster Fuller said, “Our brains deal exclusively with special-case experiences. Only our minds are able to discover the generalized principles operating without exception in each and every special-experience case which if detected and mastered will give knowledgeable advantage in all instances.” You seem to be trying to capture and combine the duality of brain and mind. Our brain is the carrier of the mind. The brain receives input from our senses and passes along the signals, whereas the mind is the intangible collective flow that interprets that information and is able to analyze it, manipulate it, and predict future circumstances which it can then prepare for. The brain reacts mechanically, whereas the mind is able to be proactive in thought. The brain is like the instrument on which the mind is played. Of course, you can break down a song played on an instrument into the vibrations of molecules, the wave forms and patterns, but simply charting and diagramming a song is very different than “feeling” the emotional strokings that come from the mind’s synchronization with and anticipation of the beats and movements.

It is possible for the mind to act independently of physical stimulus, which is what I believe you were refering to, in altered states of consciousness such as dreams, meditation, prayer, bad trips, hypnotherapy, hypoxia, etc. It is possible to “see” and “experience” images, sounds, activities, emotions, conversations, events, people and places, and then link those experiences to “real-world” experiences. I can become enraptured in the memory of a song just as I can by hearing it in real life in my car. The experience is no less real, at least, in my mind. An outside observer could plainly detect the music playing in my car, but not in my head. This leads us to the conflict between the “spiritual” and the “physical”. This conflict in experience drives people to try to “fill the gap” with various philosophical, theological, or scientific explanations. Everyone is entitled to and responsible for their own conclusion.

Although this web site is directed at the development of fusion, your ideas provide an insight into the process of developing a general theory. Observation combined with ignorance and curiosity will lead to hypothises, testing, confirmation, and finally the “generalized principles” that Buckminster Fuller spoke of. Our fusion work is based on decades of observation, experimentation, new generalized principles and an innovative application of those new principles. We hope it will work!

[AaronB]

Transmute, my earlier comments were meant as a compliment on texaslabrat’s openness, and not as an attack on you. You have a good understanding of the potential benefits and challenges that face our work, and we welcome your involvement. I don’t see you as a defeatist at all, nor close minded. You bring up good questions and relative facts. That’s what this project needs if we are to actually succeed, and I hope we do. Let’s not get tied up over the defeatism concern. I don’t see any defeatism here. Critical questions and concerns are certainly welcome.

[AaronB]

texaslabrat wrote: So while it’s not proof positive that power production from such a mechanism is feasible, at the same time it represents a marked lack of concrete proof that would tend to disprove such a device. Anyway, like I said before, I’m going to withhold the majority of my “judgment” until the patent information becomes public and can be subjected to a more general review. But from what I’ve seen so far, I’m encouraged.

Wow, that is one of the most honest and non-judgemental appraisals of our work that I have ever heard! I wish everyone was as willing to hear us out and not dismiss the ideas based on preconceived notions and current technologies. You’re right. The patent application will clarify the proposals, and the means will then be open to evaluation. It is important to realize that none of our ideas require new physics or particles. All we are doing is taking an old device and applying new ideas to it to raise the overall output efficiency. The DPF is not a fairy tale machine. Its potential has not been researched enough, although its basic operation is pretty well understood, and it has a long track record already. The magnetic field effect is also real, but hasn’t been applied to the DPF before. Injecting angular momentum is also an old idea, but it hasn’t been applied to a DPF before. The x-ray capture device requires no special physics either, as will be seen later. The combination and refinement of these ideas will hopefully produce a lot of net energy. Defeatism may be appropriate in situations where the writing is on the wall that failure is certain, or when success is dependent only on a miracle, but that is certainly not the situation with Focus Fusion. I appreciate the open-minded attitude.

[AaronB]

I like the idea of the lab tour. It would be great if we could interview the scientists and engineers who are working on it in Chile. Maybe a brief history of fusion attempts, with an explanation of the benefits and challenges of aneutronic fusion. I think the focus should be on: 1) the growing energy needs of the world, 2) the ideal nature of aneutronic fusion as the source of energy, 3) the developmental history of fusion research, 4) the dominant role of the Tokamak in current research, 5) the potential advantages of Focus Fusion over other methods, 6) the history and functioning of the dense plasma focus, 7) the recent developments in theory and experiment done by Eric Lerner (including the lab tour), 8) the future direction of study and experimentation. It is important that people realize that this is not cold fusion, bubble fusion, or any other kind of free energy research. It is backed up by many years of academic study and government funding. There is a common misperception that fusion technology and energy is decades away, and the stuff of science fiction. We need to show them that Focus Fusion could literally mean that usable fusion energy is within reach, within a few short years, and without the negative effects of other sources of energy.

[Author]

Posts