superwave principle and storing energy

[William Gaatjes]

I found this website and i find it promising.

http://superwavefusion.com/

It talks about modulating electrical energy to enhance atom absorption of 1 element in a molecular lattice of another element.

I do not think it is that far fetched and it seems to comply with the little knowledge i have about string theory.

I think it is even possible to use this principle to build better materials or store more energy in batteries.
When i am thinking of the principle used by the late John Kanzius, a great inventor :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius

Of using rf waves to weaken the bonds between atoms, then i think the other ways is also possible, to increase the bonds and therefore store more energy. If done correctly, the energy increase can also keeps the new energetic bonds stable.

Later in 2007, Kanzius announced that the same radio frequency transmitter can also be used to burn hydrogen electrolyzed from salt water.[14] [17] The discovery was made accidentally while he was researching the use of radio waves for desalination. Kanzius said that "In this case we weren't looking for energy, we were looking for something that might do desalinization. The more we tried desalinization, the more heat we produced, until we got fire".[17] Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas and stated in July 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."[18] The details of the process are still unreleased pending the issuance of a patent.[18] Kanzius proposed that the flame is produced by burning of hydrogen and oxygen, released from the water by radio waves "forcing together" the "normally separated" hydrogen and oxygen in the water, a process he calls "reunification". [18] In water (H2O), hydrogen is covalently bonded to oxygen, and thus the process must "reunite" pairs of hydrogen atoms and pairs of oxygen atoms, releasing dihydrogen (H2) and dioxygen (O2). The energy from the radio waves is absorbed by the water and splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen which then react together to reform the water and re-release the energy and form a flame. In other words, the process turns radio energy into chemical energy, which then turns to heat and light energy, but does not "take energy from water". Rather, energy is put into the water in order to break it up into its components, which now may combust. The water torch, a form of oxyhydrogen torch, is an earlier example of the process of breaking down water and then recombining oxygen and hydrogen to release heat and light energy. The red flame and non explosive form of burning[19] suggest that other chemicals are involved in the fire, and if the claims are true, may be the chlorine released from the melted salt (NaCl). Nevertheless, this discovery may be a clean way to break down water into its elements and perhaps a cheaper way than electrolysis which in most forms produces toxic output from chemical reactions with the electrodes, or otherwise is produced with platinum electrodes, which are very expensive. It is difficult to compare the processes, when no chemical, physical or numeric details are actually known, except the claims that RF heats up the water, breaks it down into its elements and that it then combusts. Kanzius' experiment has been confirmed by Rustum Roy, a materials scientist at Pennsylvania State University, in a demonstration before the Material Science faculty, using Kanzius' RF transceiver[20], which Kanzius had brought to the lab for the day.[14] On his website, Roy writes: "It is clear that Mr. Kanzius has demonstrated the ability to dissociate aqueous solutions of sodium chloride at normal sea water concentrations into hydrogen and oxygen."[20][14][17] According to Roy, "The salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies."[21] The temperature and flame color varies with water solutions and concentrations.[21]

I replied to a post with this idea to someone who thinks that ICE engines have a higher efficiency then electrical motors.
Here is the link :

Dailytech link

Do some research how much energy is spend in refining crude oil into gasoline. Then compare the whole chain of energy production to energy usage between ICE engines automobiles and electrical motor automobiles. You do not want to know how lot it is. Your claim is one of the biggest misconceptions existing. Extracting oil is easy , just digg a hole. But you have to process that oil too. Now where do you think that energy comes from ? An example link : http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining2.htm And when optimised, an electrical propulsion is a closed system without pollution. This is a lot easier to do. Making an ICE propulsion a closed system is not impossible but the efficiency would be so low one would be just insane to even try. Do the calculation yourself. In the long run electricity always wins. It will not be long before someone finds out a way to modulate the voltage and the frequency of the ac voltage superpositioned on the dc voltage applied to the battery. This together with a enhanced metallurgic design will significantly increase the amount of storage that a battery can perform. It will be the same principle as proposed in the super wave fusion principle but with different materials and different voltages and frequencies : http://superwavefusion.com/ Click the video.

I know i am having my imagination running at full clock but it is a morning with rain wating to drop and i am just relaxing here with a nice cup of tea , my addicted to science mind and tosti's ...

Who thinks that the approach about energy modulation to manipulate molecular lattices is possible ? I sure do. Since i believe matter is nothing more then synchronized energy that is resonating. This resonance keeps it from decaying at fast rates but decaying is inevitable. I truly believe that all higher elements decay back to hydrogen and that hydrogen wil dissolve into seperate particles and that these particles are nothing more then energy itself resonating at certain frequencies. Maybe that resonance is maintaind by something we do not know yet. Maybe it's dark energy that keeps this resonance going that higher elements can continue to exist.

When you take a piece of any material, all the atoms in that material are oscillating but in a not synchronized way. Synchronizing them can be done by use of heat or cooling down. A principle of superconducting: Atom's moving harmonically inside a lattice smoothing the path for electron' s. In effect another form of resonance.



Oh well, time for another cup of tea that is...

 

[CycloWizard]

You state that energy is required to refine oil, but think that electrical motors run of their own volition? Where does the electricity for the motor come from? :roll:

Is there any evidence that smaller elements actually lose protons with time? I don't believe so, yet this is what you "truly believe." Thus, your belief is religious in nature and I can't really discuss it.

 

[silverpig]

First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense."

You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together. We already manipulate crystal lattices. Piezoelectric crystals deform when we apply a voltage across them. We can create defects in crystal lattices, we can introduce different atoms into a crystal lattice (doping). We can move impurities in a crystal lattice around using voltage and/or heat.

You truly believe that all elements decay into hydrogen? Well, considering that the most stable elements are the ones near Iron in the periodic table, that doesn't make much sense. Lighter elements fuse to get to a lower energy state, heavier elements break up via fission to get to a lower energy state.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: silverpig
First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense."

You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together. We already manipulate crystal lattices. Piezoelectric crystals deform when we apply a voltage across them. We can create defects in crystal lattices, we can introduce different atoms into a crystal lattice (doping). We can move impurities in a crystal lattice around using voltage and/or heat.

piezo electric effect is nice. Have you ever heard of the pyro electric effect or photo electric effect. ? When looking at these effects there are interesting possibilities.



Besides modifying crystal is something special. Look at strained silicon. The cyrstal is doped with germanium causing the silicon atom's to rearrange and improving the electron flow.
My guess is that high temperature type II superconductors are using the same principal.

type 2 superconductors

I mean to say that with exceptions most of the lattice manipulation is very crude.

Besides, It seems everything is about harmonics ,resonance and oscillations. And with what i know is that is exactly what the string theory is about.
It is just a way of looking at things differently.

You truly believe that all elements decay into hydrogen? Well, considering that the most stable elements are the ones near Iron in the periodic table, that doesn't make much sense. Lighter elements fuse to get to a lower energy state, heavier elements break up via fission to get to a lower energy state.

Well, there is a reason it's stable. But i was really thinking in large periods of time. And besides, we begin to discover a lot of strange phenomena these days.
All we know is discovered under the save blanket of mother earth.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You state that energy is required to refine oil, but think that electrical motors run of their own volition? Where does the electricity for the motor come from? :roll:

Are you that simple ?


When looking at the total picture of energy production to energy usage, electricity has a higher efficiency. We can produce electricity in a closed non polluting system. Keeping the pollution to a controlled enviroment.
Electricity is everywhere to be found. Besides nuclear technology for electricity production keeps improving.
It is true that hydrocarbon chaines hold a lot of energy we can use. But there is so much energy in those chaines that most of it we throw away again through the exhaust.
With electricity we do not have that problem. We do have the problem that we cannot store as much energy inside a battery or an accu as we can have for the same weight of hydrocarbon's.

Is there any evidence that smaller elements actually lose protons with time? I don't believe so, yet this is what you "truly believe." Thus, your belief is religious in nature and I can't really discuss it.

I don't think in protons. I think all these particles are effect's and not causes.




My "truly believe" may have been a little enthusiastic.

But i can give you my point of view when it comes to religion.


Religion is nothing more then the use of psychology.

Once long ago enlighted minds all over the world and in their own time and place discovered that when people have generation after generation free time to think and not having to be a hunter/gatherer causes an amazing effect. The brain evolves. We become more psychological volatile and less and less bound by our genetic preprogrammed behaviour. Ever heard of the phrase that madness and genius are different sides of the same coin ? That is a bit extreme but it is what it comes down to. Thus people needed to be learned to control there "weakness" and religion appeared but in a different way we are used too now a days. The garden of eden and the forbidden fruit for example symbolizes that consciousness choice has becoming more important then being under the save blanket of preprogrammed genetic behaviour. We have the choice to become more aware. A lot of religions, lifestyles and philosophies from all over the world preach this in essence.

Unfortunately religion is also a perfect means to inject fear and hate into people. To control people. This is i am sorry to say is too much the case. Abuse of religion is abuse of people.


My point is do not take religion literally, but read between the lines what is being preached. We are all human's and the only way we grow is to become more aware of ourselfs and everything and everybody around us.

 

[CycloWizard]

You really might want to get a basic chemical workup of that white powder you're putting in your tea...

 

[William Gaatjes]

These are a few of the many of my favourite websites :

This site has very nice java applets and information.

physics 2000


News :

physorg


technologyreview


scientificamerican

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You really might want to get a basic chemical workup of that white powder you're putting in your tea...

I do not use sugar in my tea. I use honey.

 

[silverpig]

*sigh*

 

[William Gaatjes]

Is it that hard to think out of the box ?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Is it that hard to think out of the box ?

I think the *sigh* might have been elicited by the ease with which the thoughts expressed in several recent "highly technical" treads have gotten so far outside the "box" of demonstrable facts.

One danger sign is any assertion that violates the conservation of energy, such as:

SuperWave? Fusion ... appears to produce an astonishing 25 times more energy output than the energy required to produce it.

Another danger sign is any assertion made on the basis of belief (or an individual's sense of what should be), such as:

i believe matter is nothing more then synchronized energy that is resonating

or

I truly believe that all higher elements decay back to hydrogen and that hydrogen wil dissolve into seperate particles

A third danger sign is seeking support for an assertion based on facts we don't know, such as:

And besides, we begin to discover a lot of strange phenomena these days.

And finally, you don't win friends by casting aspersions, such as:

Are you that simple ?

Now I know we can probably find some of these danger flags in my own posts from time to time, so I'm not passing judgement on you. Any you're certainly entitled to think whatever you want. That said, the members who frequent this forum generally see "highly technical" as a oasis for thinking that is "inside" the factual box.

My two cents...

P.S. - I don't agree with your assertion that: "In the long run electricity always wins".

 

[firewolfsm]

You are not superior, stop thinking you are. Your ideas are undeveloped, immature, and far too ambitious for your intelligence.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
You are not superior, stop thinking you are. Your ideas are undeveloped, immature, and far too ambitious for your intelligence.

I always have a lot of plans.
I am thinking about writing a novell. Hence i do a lot of digging.
From the start to the end.

But why this intention of putting me down ?
Maybe i suffer from the cassandra syndrome...

Seriously. Afcourse i know that everything i bring up is still science fiction but then again,
it is not me who will actually come with proof of concepts. I just hope to make a change by sowing seeds. Somebody actually skilled might read it and might have an "eureka" moment connecting the dots in some work he or she is doing.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Is it that hard to think out of the box ?

I think the *sigh* might have been elicited by the ease with which the thoughts expressed in several recent "highly technical" treads have gotten so far outside the "box" of demonstrable facts.

Well , one must have a hobby. I sometimes like to relax and philosophize.

One danger sign is any assertion that violates the conservation of energy, such as: SuperWave? Fusion ... appears to produce an astonishing 25 times more energy output than the energy required to produce it.

Well, i think and agree that the sentence is a little misleading. I do think they are just speaking about energy input and not about the fact that the material it self is delivering that 24 times ? more energy. I assume they are not taking into account the matter used. They are speaking of matter conversion to energy. That seems to be the best explanation. I personally feel it is just marketing stuff and the real mathmetics are showing a better picture. On a side note, even if this fusion technology does not work, the concept about it is still true and can maybe be applied for other technologies.

Another danger sign is any assertion made on the basis of belief (or an individual's sense of what should be), such as:

i believe matter is nothing more then synchronized energy that is resonating

or

I truly believe that all higher elements decay back to hydrogen and that hydrogen wil dissolve into seperate particles

Here is my view, please correct me if i am wrong :
I don't know if you have knowledge about electron orbitals or atom lattices but it all is in effect oscillating at different frequencies. Mostly tuned to and coupled with eachother but i can assure you that there is drift in frequencies because of A the elements have their weaknesses, so to speak and B nonstop outside interference. Now, a sine is nothing more then a circle movement in time. That is where the basic idea for atom's came from if i am correct.

If you take any piece of material, the atom's in that material do not move synchronized with eachother. There is always a disturbance because of impurities but also because of the pyroelectric effect, piezo electric effect, photo electric effect and even cosmic radiation(local like the sun , nova's out there). How about the fact we are constantly effected by the earth magnetic field. That there is always an electrical charge being build up between speperate bodies. Interaction everywhere.

Now i think again of type I and type II superconductors and techniques like strained silicon. synchronized movement of atom's and electrons improve the current flow because of the build up of the lattice. Now, the microwave effect, heating up food with high frequency electromagnetic radiation gving more energy to hydrogen atoms. And for a while now, therahertz research is going on and is very very promising and interesting.

It is hard to imagine but is true, everything you look at the surface looks like an ocean, waves moving around. Another interesting effect is the skin effect when letting alternating current flow through a conductor. The higher the frequency, the more current runs at the "surface" of that conductor. And if i am remembering correctly, the coating of that conductor makes a difference too. Now is that not fascinating ?

The electromagnetic scale. There is the radiation that is summed up as gamma radiation. When it is more energetic then gammaradation, there is nothing left then unstable and stable forms of matter.

A third danger sign is seeking support for an assertion based on facts we don't know, such as:

And besides, we begin to discover a lot of strange phenomena these days.

Well, that is why i presented some of the links, in my previous post. Some of the information i have comes from the discoveries of those sites. I have many more where tose links came from. A similair minded individual might share some idea's and we can have a discussion. That Should be fun. :laugh:

And finally, you don't win friends by casting aspersions, such as:

Are you that simple ?

True, i came on a little strong there. My apologies to cyclowizard if i offended him,her...

Now I know we can probably find some of these danger flags in my own posts from time to time, so I'm not passing judgement on you. Any you're certainly entitled to think whatever you want. That said, the members who frequent this forum generally see "highly technical" as a oasis for thinking that is "inside" the factual box.

My two cents...



P.S. - I don't agree with your assertion that: "In the long run electricity always wins".

When it comes to electrical automobiles and ICE automobiles i do. When it comes to computing i am assuming you are talking about photonic computing ?
I am interested in your answer...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I always have a lot of plans.
I am thinking about writing a novell. Hence i do a lot of digging.
From the start to the end.

Please, do the world a favor and never write anything again. Your mastery of the English language could choke a horse, and that's to say nothing of your amazing lack of understanding of any of the scientific concepts that you're discussing. Though you may find an audience, since ignorance is apparently a virtue to a large demographic, at least in the US.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I always have a lot of plans.
I am thinking about writing a novell. Hence i do a lot of digging.
From the start to the end.

Please, do the world a favor and never write anything again. Your mastery of the English language could choke a horse, and that's to say nothing of your amazing lack of understanding of any of the scientific concepts that you're discussing. Though you may find an audience, since ignorance is apparently a virtue to a large demographic, at least in the US.

Having a rough day at work have we ?
Maybe it is time you start to get some education and while you are at it get some social skills.

I revoke my apologies. It is certain there is nothing to apologize for. You are that simple.
I would really like to see how much you know about these kind of subjects.
I feel less then me. At least i am honest enough to admit that i am still learning. I find the calculations interesting and i do them.
I read up about the subject and try to understand them.
There is nothing wrong with wondering about the universe or how the quantum mechanical world operates.
It is interesting to find out that theories after being used still seem to not show the complete picture.


If you have nothing usefull to say, i prefer you do not bother this thread or me again.
Exactly people like you bore me to death.

Besides i am not from the US. Not that it is not a great country, but it has it's flaws as all countries have. People like you. :lips:


P.S. :

Read this text in your post :

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt

I come up with ideas and hoping to discuss them, you just have an opinion about people.


Please read this text too about this section of the forum:

Check your egos at the door. This forum is for those who are serious about hardware. ON TOPIC discussions about PC architecture, technology and in-depth looks at what we all know and love. NO FLAME WARS. Keep the discussions truly technical.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Having a rough day at work have we ?
Maybe it is time you start to get some education and while you are at it get some social skills.

I revoke my apologies. It is certain there is nothing to apologize for. You are that simple.
I would really like to see how much you know about these kind of subjects.
I feel less then me. At least i am honest enough to admit that i am still learning. I find the calculations interesting and i do them.
I read up about the subject and try to understand them.
There is nothing wrong with wondering about the universe or how the quantum mechanical world operates.
It is interesting to find out that theories after being used still seem to not show the complete picture.


If you have nothing usefull to say, i prefer you do not bother this thread or me again.
Exactly people like you bore me to death.

Besides i am not from the US. Not that it is not a great country, but it has it's flaws as all countries have. People like you. :lips:


P.S. :

Read this text in your post :

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt

I come up with ideas and hoping to discuss them, you just have an opinion about people.


Please read this text too about this section of the forum:

Check your egos at the door. This forum is for those who are serious about hardware. ON TOPIC discussions about PC architecture, technology and in-depth looks at what we all know and love. NO FLAME WARS. Keep the discussions truly technical.

*head explodes*

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Yes its true, Cyclowizard did come off a bit hot headed there but he's got quite a bit of credibility in my books given his contributions to this forum. That said, the points to be made were accurate. If you in fact do intend to write a book, you will need to brush up on your writing skills. Not only that but technical writing is a whole other ball park. In addition to this, the links you've posted provide a very superficial view of the physics involved with these sorts of things. If you want to get really involved in it, get some textbooks and find lecture notes from university level courses at the very least. I'm a master's Astrophysics student so my understanding of condensed matter is somewhat lacking but I definitely know enough that it is VERY far removed from any type of string theory.
You're not likely to get someone who will do a point by point explanation of why the things you've said are wrong simply because parts of them are factual with large amounts of BS mixed in, it makes it very hard to decipher. This is one of the reasons these "Superwave" type things are still around, they get just technical enough with enough facts to go over 95% of peoples heads so they seem credible. To be fair this is the first one that I've seen that hasn't resorted to claiming things like "Big Oil Conspiracy", "Einstein made a mistake in his math that no one caught", "Scientist don't understand the theory they are working with" etc. The best way to tell its not credible is the fact that there are no peer reviewed papers out on it and it hasn't won a nobel prize which if its claims were true it surely would.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
Yes its true, Cyclowizard did come off a bit hot headed there but he's got quite a bit of credibility in my books given his contributions to this forum. That said, the points to be made were accurate. If you in fact do intend to write a book, you will need to brush up on your writing skills. Not only that but technical writing is a whole other ball park. In addition to this, the links you've posted provide a very superficial view of the physics involved with these sorts of things. If you want to get really involved in it, get some textbooks and find lecture notes from university level courses at the very least. I'm a master's Astrophysics student so my understanding of condensed matter is somewhat lacking but I definitely know enough that it is VERY far removed from any type of string theory.
You're not likely to get someone who will do a point by point explanation of why the things you've said are wrong simply because parts of them are factual with large amounts of BS mixed in, it makes it very hard to decipher. This is one of the reasons these "Superwave" type things are still around, they get just technical enough with enough facts to go over 95% of peoples heads so they seem credible. To be fair this is the first one that I've seen that hasn't resorted to claiming things like "Big Oil Conspiracy", "Einstein made a mistake in his math that no one caught", "Scientist don't understand the theory they are working with" etc. The best way to tell its not credible is the fact that there are no peer reviewed papers out on it and it hasn't won a nobel prize which if its claims were true it surely would.

The writing a book statement was a yoke.
Just as i do not suffer from the Cassandra syndrome.
If you wish to know what the Cassandra syndrome is all about :

Cassandra syndrome

I am not going to scan my technical books on the subject and pdf them too you.
The books go far deeper then anything those websites mention. But it is a start.

And i truly like to see some real knowledge here. All i see is written that i am wrong and that i am a nobody. I find cyclowizard a big egomaniac.

As i am naturally skeptical and cautious with everything i am skeptical about the superwave theory but that does not mean it is not interesting. Afcourse the superwave theorist may be wrong but i feel a lot of you folks do not even give a person a chance because that person is not saying what your textbook taught you. Great minds naturally challenge but respect the established order. I am always happy and enjoying reading about those kind of great minds every time.

 

[KIAman]

I see this all the time, miscommunication. OP, I am most assured you know what you are thinking and feel that it is correct. It is your method of communicating your ideas that is open to criticism. PowerEngineer has already pointed out some items which can cause the wrong message to be sent. It could be that you are not from this country and that is already a communication block, regardless of your mastery of the English language (culture, experience, etc.).

Your original post and the linked info follows the typical pattern of "Snake Oil" marketing blurb.

It's great to discuss ideas, but if you want a serious discussion, you need to supply founded information to support your ideas. Some good information sources include math, experimental evidence, logic, published articles, etc. We need this information to discuss your ideas with due diligence. If not, we do not see the "connection" you seem to have in your head.

As for me, I read about superwave fusion and looked around their site. So far, they have more neato 3d rendered videos than real information or cited sources. This leads me to naturally assume they are no different than any other perpetual machine fanatics. Maybe using energy to change the behavior of molecules and atoms are possible. Can you explain the details with that idea? Did you mean that moving electrons in a wave somehow cause an interaction with the atoms any differently than moving elections not in a wave? What is the mechanics of the effect? Is it physical? Quantum? A "New" idea? Let me know.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: KIAman
I see this all the time, miscommunication. OP, I am most assured you know what you are thinking and feel that it is correct. It is your method of communicating your ideas that is open to criticism. PowerEngineer has already pointed out some items which can cause the wrong message to be sent. It could be that you are not from this country and that is already a communication block, regardless of your mastery of the English language (culture, experience, etc.).

Your original post and the linked info follows the typical pattern of "Snake Oil" marketing blurb.

It's great to discuss ideas, but if you want a serious discussion, you need to supply founded information to support your ideas. Some good information sources include math, experimental evidence, logic, published articles, etc. We need this information to discuss your ideas with due diligence. If not, we do not see the "connection" you seem to have in your head.

As for me, I read about superwave fusion and looked around their site. So far, they have more neato 3d rendered videos than real information or cited sources. This leads me to naturally assume they are no different than any other perpetual machine fanatics. Maybe using energy to change the behavior of molecules and atoms are possible. Can you explain the details with that idea? Did you mean that moving electrons in a wave somehow cause an interaction with the atoms any differently than moving elections not in a wave? What is the mechanics of the effect? Is it physical? Quantum? A "New" idea? Let me know.

Thank you for a normal reply.

I am indeed not from a country that has the english language as a native language.
On the other hand, if i use words written according to british grammatical rules people in the us still accuse me of making typing errors. This has happened to me once before on another forum. :laugh:

example : color and colour.

I will try to prepare some info but it will take time.

As for the superwave theorists not giving detailed information, is it not possible that there is some patent research being done ? I mean the patent office nowadays is it seems nothing more then a tool to force people to pay up and not a means to protect the hard work from people investing there life into an idea.

Can you explain the details with that idea? Did you mean that moving electrons in a wave somehow cause an interaction with the atoms any differently than moving elections not in a wave? What is the mechanics of the effect? Is it physical? Quantum? A "New" idea? Let me know.

At the moment i can not really explane it fully, but i doknow that everything is linked together by some mysterious link. When we look at everything as particles we would just continu to find more particles. I can promise you that. But when we just look at everything as oscillations i think more can be found. I wonder for example if there are any fourier translations done at the different wavelenghts every element seems to radiate. Every element has it's own radiation patterns because of the energy levels of the electrons from
that element. I also never read anything about phase differences. When we take multiple electrons they interact with eachother. The nucleus als oscillates, and the oscillation is depending on the build up of the nucleus , the electrons around it and other atoms around it. But then again we also have all outside influences, like the piezo effect, pyro effect and the photo electric effect as well cosmic radiation. I think when all these are taken into account something will arise.
No someone just has to read my post and think : Hey he has a point, time to do some calculations.

What i also do not understand is that when designing according to the known knowledge nothing seems to work as expected and designed. It is trial and error. Many solutions are hard work of years of trying. That is the feeling i get when i read about how much time and effort these scientists do put into it.

 

[Locut0s]

Cold fusion is something they have been bandying about in pseudo science for several decades now. Ever since the Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion debate. Like perpetual motion, "zero point" energy, and all the rest of the pseudoscience ideas that keep popping up again and again. This site looks particularly wacky.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: KIAman
I see this all the time, miscommunication. OP, I am most assured you know what you are thinking and feel that it is correct. It is your method of communicating your ideas that is open to criticism. PowerEngineer has already pointed out some items which can cause the wrong message to be sent. It could be that you are not from this country and that is already a communication block, regardless of your mastery of the English language (culture, experience, etc.).

Your original post and the linked info follows the typical pattern of "Snake Oil" marketing blurb.

It's great to discuss ideas, but if you want a serious discussion, you need to supply founded information to support your ideas. Some good information sources include math, experimental evidence, logic, published articles, etc. We need this information to discuss your ideas with due diligence. If not, we do not see the "connection" you seem to have in your head.

As for me, I read about superwave fusion and looked around their site. So far, they have more neato 3d rendered videos than real information or cited sources. This leads me to naturally assume they are no different than any other perpetual machine fanatics. Maybe using energy to change the behavior of molecules and atoms are possible. Can you explain the details with that idea? Did you mean that moving electrons in a wave somehow cause an interaction with the atoms any differently than moving elections not in a wave? What is the mechanics of the effect? Is it physical? Quantum? A "New" idea? Let me know.

Sorry for the late reply...
Busy times at work and i have work todo at home as well.

It is an old idea in a new jacket. Something very normal in the electronics RF world.

I have my thought on this asked in another thread( When something is cooled to absolute zero).
It is something i read in one of my books about how tunneling elektrons happens and when reading about zero point energy and about the casimir force.
I am interested to know what you think of it ?
Maybe it makes no sense but wonder if this can be applied to know experiments like for example the double slit experiment about the dual wave/particle nature of photons and elektrons.

I bolded it :

Originally posted by: bsobel Interaction with the vacuum fluctuation will not affect it. You may get a momentary force that will move a part of the object but eventually a counteracting force will achieve equilibrium. The point being is that the molecular motion doesnt not actualy stop if you could reach 0K, zpe actually prevents this. This negates the therotecial would the matter 'disappear' question if matter is indeed built of vibrating strings, enough vibrations continue due to ZPE to prevent the scenario the OP asked about.

I have a question, suppose that strings would vibrate at a much higher level then we know. And that everything we know and experience is based on subtract frequencies. When subtracting to waves, the resulting wave is a wave with a frequency of F1-F2.

As a thought experiment and taking the speed of light as the not maximum , is that possible ? Another thought experiment : Lets say that photons move in a circulair motion, much like the shape of a spring.

Now if it is possible to move in a straight line and oscillate faster that no interaction of meaning occurs, it would be possible to not be detected.

But when these strings interact with eachother we get something we can actually measure.

What would your thougths be on that , just hypothetically thinking ?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Is there any evidence that smaller elements actually lose protons with time?

I think a special form of cosmic rays can do this. The matter does not cease to exist rather is transformed.

 

[xboa721]

One danger sign is any assertion that violates the conservation of energy,

While the post you referred to was by someone else...

I'd agree, however I might point towards research evidence that suggests that by attempting to extract power from the vacuum, per se, we are indeed not in violation of the conservation of energy.

The point I would like to make here is not so much whether we can technically do this, because a plethora of youtube videos suggest as much, but whether the time is rife to look at the details and reconsider if we didn't make a mistake a while back in history.

Here's a *highly technical* document. Apologies because it is quite advanced and I'm not exactly au fait with tensors and the mechanics of guage theories however it does support the ideas of Beardon and dare I even mention the projects of Bedini?!

http://www.gewo.info/ve/Evans/Evans.pdf

Can the engineers with ears then look again at the motion of the spinning planets, our own iron cored planet with spinning molten outercore producing significant amounts of electricity before we even consider gravity.

The precession of electrons around a nucleus seems to be somewhat perpetual to our everyday senses and we have empirical evidence to show that Tesla waves can in fact be induced and used to create negative time effects.

Sounds far fetched? A proper read of the literature, not just the highly censored and popular magazines published by those 'respectable' scientific journals (who by the way suffer popularity affectations much like the womans weekly, cleo and cosmopolitan) but the evidence and research coming from far and wide.

The maths in the doc above point to the potential to tap energy from the vacuum. Bedini-Cole motors, Tesla motors, Magnet motors and even solid state designs that appear to pump charge around a circuit all the while illuminating one or more useful lights appear to be reality.

I don't suggest for a minute we violate the conservation of energy principle. I do suggest we need to consider how much energy we can tap when we know there is an equivalent mass from energy on the order of 10^80 to 10^120 grams PER CUBIC CENTIMETRE of the vacuum.

Say we grab 0.00001%... still quite a bit, ain't it?

And it would be useful (in breaking the bonds of suppression) if we could agree that for all practical purposes, a 'so-called' perpetual motion machine would not need to run actually to infinity (the problem with Maxwell-Heavyside's equations) but for, say, a human lifetime, thereabouts. That would be perpetual. To date, I've not seen one of these. But I have seen circuits and demos that suggest as much is possible.

Time for a fresh look? What saith you?