[Charles Wilcox]

Rezwan,

I sympathize with your initial reaction. It took me awhile to understand this juxtaposition.

The Thunderbolts Project is a collaboration between two disciplines, The Electric Universe ( an extension of the Plasma Universe ) as championed by Wallace Thornhill, and Comparative Mythology, specifically the Polar Configuration ( an extension of works popularized by people like Immanuel Velikovsky ) as championed by David Talbott.

It seems to me you are more interested in The Electric Universe. I would suggest:
– Wallace Thornhill’s website: http://www.holoscience.com
– Wallace Thornhill & David Talbott’s book: The Electric Universe
– Don Scott’s book: The Electric Sky.

I find the Comparative Mythology parts more challenging. The basic thoughts behind it are that there are many, extraordinary similarities between ancient mythologies around the world. The best explanation for this similarity is that cultures around the world witnessed extraordinary events and enshrined the memory of those events in myths.

The Thunderbolts Project brings both disciplines together, and each benefits:
– The Electric Universe provides a physics that can explain how the Polar Configuration was possible, along with how the planets interacted as the Polar Configuration decayed.
– Comparative Mythology provides a set of historic observations that only make sense under the Electric Universe. These observations help confirm the Electric Universe theory, and falsify contemporary astronomy theories. The Comparative Mythology history also leads to new predictions about the solar system ( such as electric planetary scarring ) that will eventually be verified or disqualified, predictions that contemporary astronomy could never predict.

I find the Comparative Mythology investigation more satisfying than our contemporary impulse to completely discount our ancestors’ ardent attempts to preserve these stories, these epic, historic accounts.

P.S. Here are some recent links regarding Comparative Mythology / The Polar Configuration:
– Two-part presentation given by David Talbott, introducing the concept and the history of Thunderbolts Project.
– “Electric Universe & The Future of Science – Part 1”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0WW-VVtdo8
– “Electric Universe & The Future of Science – Part 2”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSFTDcTDQgo
– Two “Thunderbolts Picture of the Day” articles about how we interpret ancient stories and relics.
– “That One Story Again”: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110520story.htm
– “The Voice of the Peoples”: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100902voice.htm

[Charles Wilcox]

IMO, if the ball can be kept rolling on FF, these other alternatives will fall away. Between 6-10

[Charles Wilcox]

Alex Pollard wrote: The Earth is electrically charged with respect to space, for a start there is an electric field of 150V/m (downward) at the Earth’s surface. There are continual electrical exchanges between the upper atmosphere and space – “sprites” and “elves”. I would anticipate unexpected electrical effects when firing a stream of metal projectiles through the atmosphere. Mind you, such effects could perhaps be harnessed to power the process.

Alex, I thought this too, but recently did a search and the proponents of the systems take it (somewhat simplistically) into account: The Space Elevator – Chapter 10: Challenges: Electrocmagnetic Fields. ( Sorry I couldn’t find a more “reputable” website with this info. )

[Charles Wilcox]

Actually, I think this is real.

NRC: Backgrounder on New Nuclear Plant Designs

It was also referenced in Gwyneth Cravens’ “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” on page 363. ( I literally just finished reading this book an hour ago. High recommend it for the non-expert & skeptic. )

[Charles Wilcox]

Torulf wrote: Here are some new animations.
2: I have made the p+B reaction more realistic in two steps.
P+B11->C12*+He4
C12->2He4

Torulf,

I appreciate the additional realism. I remember this being mentioned for the tee-shirt design, and I’m glad we’ve remembered it.

3: The Z-pinch has been actual here after Lerner

[Charles Wilcox]

Brian H wrote:

Just using Fundable.org seems far from a dynamic fundraising effort. The idea is to make it well known and well-thought of, not obscure, exclusive, and surrounded with barriers to involvement.

:bug:

How is it obscure, exclusive, or a barrier to involvement? (Not that I’ve used this service yet.) Yes, it’s online. Yes, it’s a third party system. But so is a donation Paypal account.

Have you looked at the users? The amounts they are looking for are trivial, as are most of the purposes for the money, and few get what they are looking for. Raising two million with that vehicle would be like using a little red wagon to move house. Cute, but very onerous and ultimately doomed.

You assume that current usage of Fundable.org dictate it’s future usage; I don’t see any limits on target collection limits, nor finish-date.

That most people don’t get what their asking for means that they were naive about how much people would donate, or didn’t promote their fund-raising project.

No matter the underlying method used to collect money, be it the current FocusFusion.org Donation system, or a Fundable.org managed collection, it will be “many hand make light work” approach.

I assert simply that many who sympathize with the FocusFusion cause who don’t donate now would be much more likely to donate using the pledge-system used at Fundable.org. I know I would pledge money, and I think you’d easily get double the amount in money.

[Charles Wilcox]

Brian H wrote: Just using Fundable.org seems far from a dynamic fundraising effort. The idea is to make it well known and well-thought of, not obscure, exclusive, and surrounded with barriers to involvement.

:bug:

I’m curious to know what would be lacking in using a service like Fundable.org? To me this seems like a perfect donation system. Our goal is X dollars by date Y. If we fail, you all get your money back.

How is it obscure, exclusive, or a barrier to involvement? (Not that I’ve used this service yet.) Yes, it’s online. Yes, it’s a third party system. But so is a donation Paypal account.

[Charles Wilcox]

Glenn Millam wrote:

Glenn, is it possible to revisit the “original” purple color and see if the CMYK colors can be tweaked? It seems odd to me that Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue can work just fine, yet a Deep / Dark Magenta color doesn’t come out right; I mean… Magenta is one of the primary pigments.

I find myself attached to that color: it could be the X-rays connection… but it’s more likely first impression.

I’m working on it. I do love that original design. There MUST BE A WAY!

Give me a few days though. Work is killing me at the moment. Hopefully next weekend will bring more goodies, including design adaptations for more products.

Hi Glenn, just wondering if I should wait any longer for a working version of the original purple logo, or if I should cast my die on what’s currently in the CafePress store.

No pressure. 😉

[Charles Wilcox]

Glenn Millam wrote: Alright. Here is the same illustration I put up before, using the site’s color scheme. I think its an improvement. What do you think, Reswan?

Despite the danger of posting to the end of a dead thread…

I finished reading Donald E. Scott’s book on Plasma Cosmology called “The Electric Sky.” On page 182, figure 53 shows a nice diagram of the Plasma Focus Device.

FYI.

[Charles Wilcox]

Glenn, is it possible to revisit the “original” purple color and see if the CMYK colors can be tweaked? It seems odd to me that Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue can work just fine, yet a Deep / Dark Magenta color doesn’t come out right; I mean… Magenta is one of the primary pigments.

I find myself attached to that color: it could be the X-rays connection… but it’s more likely first impression.

[Charles Wilcox]

Skimming the CafePress site, I must admit that I would be more inclined to buy the clothing if they had the small left-pocket layout, instead of the full-sized one.

[Charles Wilcox]

I read about this guy a few weeks ago via Digg: Teen Builds Nuclear Reactor in Basement

Considering the link from that article to the Fusor.net webpage about Farnsworth style reactors, I’d bet this too is an electrostatic fusion device. (This is same type of device as discussed in the recent article posted to the main-page: Should Google Go Nuclear.)

Nice to know there’s at least some, (albeit amateur) fusion research going on out there.

[Charles Wilcox]

Some final thoughts:

1. Should the arrows of “H + B” going into the center also have the same “3D” effect that the Helium atoms get? I think they should for consistency.

2. Copyright notice shouldn’t be necessary. AFAIK, U.S. Copyright need not be printed on a work, as anything by default has copyright. It’s a common practice in some areas like books, but not in others. Looking at other “branded” clothing for other things I know of, like “Firefox”, “Slashdot”, “Digg-nation”, “Debian GNU/Linux”, etc., I never see the copyright printed on the clothing.

3. I want a button! It’s already a perfect shape. Or a bumper-sticker. I have to wear “respectable” button-down shirts and slacks at my workplace, and alternative forms of promotion would be great.

Any thoughts on the font & layout for the back of the shirt? Is this circular logo going to be small or large on the front?

[Charles Wilcox]

Anyone find it ironic that we are proposing to use a likeness of the peace symbol, originally designed for the “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament”, for a nuclear power source?

[Charles Wilcox]

Wow, quite active here for two days. 😀

I think the circular design of the words around the plasma-focus emblem is awesome. Dropping the atomic symbols… I’m ambivalent about, but if the equation is elsewhere to be found, then it’s okay.

As for the peace symbol analogy, I think this could be seen as kindof cheezy if we make it too obvious… but I tend to like subtle things.

I have an idea on how to simplify the diagram a step, perhaps give it more meaning, and maintain the peace symbol. Instead of thinking of ‘H’ and ‘B’ combining together, you could think of ‘H’ flying into the ‘B’ nucleus. In effect, the Hydrogen would be splitting Boron into the Helium atoms and creating the energy. If we used this, all you would have is ‘H’ at the top, ‘B’ in the center, and the ‘He’ flying away.

I think this depiction would make the combination of hydrogen and boron a stronger, explicit action compared to what we currently have. The only worry is that someone might confuse this action as a form of fission and not fusion. However, I think somewhere on the Focus-Fusion site it discusses how this is in fact fusion. And maybe this enigma would make people think about it more.

Thoughts?

[Author]

Posts