There are currently, 257 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
Is Aspden Right?
Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 @ 22:24:21 GMT by vlad
From the yahoo free_energy list, David Thomson writes: Hi Gary,
I've got a couple projects I'm working on right now. One involves two sheets of metal, one copper and one aluminum. When the copper sheet ionizes it gives up two electrons and thus has a +2 charge. The aluminum produces +3 charge. By building a capacitor out of copper and aluminum, and spacing the sheets just right, the Casimir effect will kick in. An exchange of photons will take place that will tend to ionize the metals. The copper will be negative compared to the aluminum.
---Shawn Bishop writes:
Everyone should realize that this predicition is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Ooops, 1st Law, I mean.). Dave proposes that, for two plates in thermal equilibrium (assumed as the set-up sounds like it would be done in air, in a room, with any old two metal plates...) with their surroundings will spontaneously charge each other up. To do so would be to exact work "from nothing", as work would have to be done in order to build the resultant electric field between these two plates. But, hey, don't let this stop you Dave. Fill your boots!
---David Thomson writes:
Everyone should also understand that Shawn has turned down my offer of explaining my theory to his students as an alternative to the Standard Model. Even though Shawn recognizes my math is entirely correct and that I do predict the relative strengths of the forces with my Unified Field Theory, he is at a loss to prove it wrong.
Everyone should also know that as a result of the Quantum Physics Model and the support it receives from the Casimir experiments that I have a solid basis for assuming all charge is distributed, has geometry, and exists because of a dynamic Aether.
It should also be pointed out that the Standard Model denies the existence of the dynamic Aether (even though it uses its constants to calculate the force of gravity and charge attraction/repulsion among other things). When the effect of the Aether is considered, there is no violation of energy conservation because equations exist which can account for the creation of photons. What Shawn neglected to say was that the creation of these photons is already recognized by modern physics and labeled "virtual photons" in order to hide the fact that they are "real photons". There's nothing that scares the daylights out of Standard Model adherents more than extra photons popping out of the woodwork.
Anybody with an ounce of common sense has to ask why physicists would talk about "virtual photons" in the first place if the photons didn't truly exist? Also, we have to ask why the Universe is expanding. The Universe isn't just stretching linearly, it is also getting more massive. This extra mass is coming from the so-called "virtual photons", which the Casimir effect and the Quantum Physics Model predicts.
Not only will I fill my boots up, Shawn, but I'll let you walk a mile in them when I'm done.
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
|Re: Is Aspden Right? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, February 05, 2004 @ 22:42:28 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:15:14 -0600
From: "David Thomson"
Subject: RE: Re: Is Aspden Right?
> > Even though Shawn recognizes my math is entirely correct and that I
> > do predict the relative strengths of the forces with my Unified Field
> > Theory, he is at a loss to prove it wrong.
> David, he doesn't have to prove you're wrong, you have to prove
> you're right.
I did prove I'm right. And my point is that he CAN'T prove I'm wrong. I
proved myself right when I accurately predicted the relative strengths of
the forces and mathematically quantified the force carriers. You can't
argue with that because it's true.
The experiments for determining the relative strengths of the forces have
been done hundreds of times, long before I discovered the correct physics.
Now it is up to those who believe in the Standard Model to explain why they
can't come up with a Unified Field Theory that accurately predicts the
relative strengths of the forces and mathematically quantifies the force
carriers. If they can't, they need to give me credit for doing what they
> I'm glad you're considering an experiment to do so, a
> good first step. You wouldn't actually have to carry it out, of
> course, just predict the outcome if your theory was right v. the
> outcome if it wasn't.
I'm doing it. I've just got the money today to buy an HP 34970A DAQ Switch
with the appropriate modules. Today I downloaded the software and the
manuals. I expect to have the data logger in a couple weeks.
My approach from the beginning has been the scientific method. When I was
doing experiments with combination flat spiral and tall solenoid coils I
discovered what appeared to be two completely different types of electrical
charge. When I couldn't find an explanation in the Standard Model, I
decided to put my experiments aside and take a close look at physics from
the bottom up. I did find that there are indeed two different types of
charge. In two years I had developed the Quantum Physics Model to the point
where I am ready to now resume the experiments. Only this time I'm not a
trial and error tinkerer. Now I'm a physics engineer.
I'm glad to have your approval for my experiment. I hope that means you
will now tone down the attacks on my theory and incessant nagging about
needing to present a working free energy device before the investigation is
finished. We'll have to approach the possibility of free energy devices
with a new perspective and a fresh attitude.
I'm no longer stuck with the dogma of the Standard Model, and I don't have
to conform to its expectations because I have successfully provided a
mathematically correct alternative. As long as I can provide a
mathematically correct explanation for my work, and that mathematically
correct explanation also gives a mathematically correct explanation for the
phenomena described by the Standard Model, I should be allowed the space and
reasonable amount of time I need to complete my research.
> 1) What you propose to do
> 2) What the result would be if your theory is right
> 3) What the result would be if the standard model is right
> I'm sorry to hear that you aren't interested in doing that last part,
> as it is a necessary part of the scientific method, to propose a
> hypothesis, design an experiment and make predictions of the outcome
> both if your hypothesis is right and wrong.
It was because of my own physics theory that I could see how to tap energy
from the Aether to begin with. Why should I be concerned with fitting my
research into the Standard Model? That will be up to you and others who
chose to use the Standard Model. My experiments are for the benefit of the
Quantum Physics Model and those who choose to learn it.
As I understand it, Shawn (who has a PhD in physics and teaches it) has
already told us the Standard Model prediction. The Standard Model says my
experiment would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics and
therefore there won't be any results.
|Re: Is Aspden Right? (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Friday, February 06, 2004 @ 08:24:14 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
|Copper and Aluminum do not posses an inherent electrical charge. You are confusing valence with excess electrical charge. There is a profound difference between the two. In metals like copper and aluminum the outer electrons wander through the crystal structure freely and it takes a defined amount of energy, called the Work Function, to pull them off the surface of the metal. When the metals are in physical contact the electrons from the lower Work Function metal will migrate over to the higher work function metal. What happens at that time is that the metals will create an electric field and after a certain amount of time the current flow will cease because the electrons cannot flow "uphill" against the field.