These Are Real Pentagon Reports On Warp Drive, Extra Dimensions, Anti-Gravity, And More

  • There are probably modern fission designs for reactors which meet Max's criteria. Unfortunately due to recent catastrophes with fission and the unsolved problem of intensely radioactive long lasting waste, it is politically impossible to go that route. Captain Obvious says that leaves wind, solar and geothermal. Possibly also algae and fast growing plants too.

  • This is all irrelevant, as nobody ever checked some overunity device with respect to mass-energy conservation law.

    No one has ever checked any energy producing device with respect to mass-energy laws. The change in mass is far too small to measure with any instruments. These laws have been confirmed with observations of particles and things like that, but no one has ever observed a mass decrease from a macroscopic mechanical, chemical or nuclear reaction.

  • Quote
    Zephir, you have not referenced any mass-energy violations. The neutrino example is a supreme case of mass-energy conservation correctly predicting a new unexpected particle!


    It all started like experimentally confirmed violation of mass-energy conservation law. The finding of neutrino has come 26 years later - it means, whole one quarter of century the physicists faced violation of mass-energy law without its explanation by another experiment. It's as simple as it is. Any other interpretation is irrelevant here.


    Like I said, the overunity devices doesn't imply any measurable violation mass-energy conservation law, these based on perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind the less.
    Here I collected a quite a few examples of such a devices - many of them were presented in scientific journals, some of them were even peer-reviewed.

    1. Buckling motion of graphene could be used to generate electricity from ambient thermal energy (synopsis)..
    2. Thermoelectric Power Generation from Lanthanum Strontium Titanium Oxide through the Addition of Graphene
    3. On-Chip Maxwell’s Demon as an Information-Powered Refrigerator
    4. Graphite & quartz & rubber based solid state electric generator of GQenergy s.r.l.
    5. Graphene-based "battery" for capturing the thermal energy of ions and converting it into electricity (PDF)
    6. Carbon nanotube rectenna directly converts light into electricity
    7. Microphones sensitive enough for to capture Brownian noise in solids
    8. Steorn's Orbo-Cube battery utilizes graphite suspended in wax electret matrix 1, 2
    9. Silicon Crystal Graphite Battery of QuantaMagnetics, update
    10. Victor Petrik prepares and tests graphite based thermoelectric generator before eyes of his scientific visitors
    11. Self-charging "petrovoltaic cells" of Townsend T Brown
    12. Electret apparatus for supplying electric power of Boyd Bushman
    13. LED's efficiency exceeds 100%
    14. Captret effect - capacitors have the ability to self-charge, Another captret experiments (overunity forums 1, 2, 3)
    15. Carbon Magnesium Volta pile, 2, 3 of John Bedini and Marcus Reid. Crystal battery generating 135 Volts 
    16. Karpen pile from Romania may also serve as a rectenna, Karpen's cell revisited
    17. Clarendon dry pile (Zamboni cell, Oxford bell) could also run on carbon battery
    18. Observations of spontaneous heating of bismuth sphere in magnetic field. Bismuth is diamagnetic topological insulator similar to graphene.
    19. ERR Fluxgenerator alsos uses Bismuth and aluminum are also used in
    20. The mysterious energy generating ChemAlloy story also contains bismuth..
    21. Diamagnetic graphite based motor and Superconducting generator of Andrew Abolafia could work on similar principle
    22. A Self Charging Supercapacitor, Carbon fibre battery
    23. Research of N.E. Zayev about cooling of dielectrics the changing field with energy generation, see also RU2227947 and RU2390907 patents.
    24. Physicists create first photonic Maxwell's demon, Could Maxwell's Demon Exist in Nanoscale Systems?, Autonomous Maxwell's demon displays chilling power
    25. Cool Chips electrons to carry heat from one side of a vacuum diode to the other.
    26. Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies for Self-Sustainable Standalone Wireless Sensor Platforms, Challenges and Solutions in Battery Fuel Gauging
    27. Environmental Electrosmog Harvester Feeding LED Bulb
    28. Polariton storage of energy, US8611067

    That is to say, I'm not opened to discuss existence of such devices already - I'm only here for to discuss their common working principle, which is outlined for example here.
    If you don't like it, then you're not required to participate on discussion... :-) Nobody of dog owners is required to participate in discussion about cats and trying to refuse their existence, if they don't like them - isn't it correct?

  • "REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM

    Suppose you have a machine that produces more energy than is input to it."


    Nope. A match, a spring loaded watch, a battery, or a star all produce more energy out than you put in. That is not a contradiction. The term "over unity" has no deep meaning. It is actually kind of silly. All energy producing systems are over unity. If they were not, they would be endothermic, like a loaf of bread being baked, or a battery being charged.


    It is easy to prove your own point when you pick a suitable line from a comment. What I wrote was:


    "Suppose you have a machine that produces more energy than is input to it.

    Also suppose that this machine does not change in any way during operation."


    A match is not a very good example of a machine that does not change when it emits energy.

    :(

  • Quote
    THH:
    Quote
    Zephir, you have not referenced any mass-energy violations. The neutrino example is a supreme case of mass-energy conservation correctly predicting a new unexpected particle!
    Quote
    Zephir:

    It all started like experimentally confirmed violation of mass-energy conservation law. The finding of neutrino has come 26 years later - it means, whole one quarter of century the physicists faced violation of mass-energy law without its explanation by another experiment. It's as simple as it is. Any other interpretation is irrelevant here.


    The case here does not support your interpretation. The experimental confirmation was of detected products < in mass-energy than reactants. Nothing about violation of any theory.


    There are then two hypotheses - both of which are consistent with experiment:


    (1) (mainstream) there must therefore be an undetected particle

    (2) Zephir? there is violation of mass-energy conservation


    It turns out the mainstream view was vindicated after a 26 year wait. It is not that mainstream guys were uninterested in the alternative hypothesis - but no theory showing how it could be panned out so it was never that popular, and everyone knew that an undetected particle was possible, even likely.

  • This is what I'm talking about - the neutrinos were detected twenty six years after observation of breaking of mass-energy conservation law. That means, over one quarter of century the physicists were forced to live with violation of one of most important principles of contemporary physics - such a situation can emerge anytime later. I also noted it just a few posts before. Do you think, you're smart, if you're allowing me to repeat it?


    Actually this situation (the violation of mass-energy conservation law) did already happen before twenty six years already for example in form of reaction-less drives like the Shawyer's EMDrive or Woodward's Mach Drive. These devices move forward despite they don't release anything back - in this sense we also observe the violation of mass-energy conservation principle. Not accidentally every reaction-less drive is also potential perpetuum mobile (why?). Now the physics should also wait for a new neutrino-like particle, the reactive force of which would explain this anomaly.


    But we didn't observe it - actually the physicists even didn't start to look for it. So why the mass-energy conservation law should be preserved in general?

    There is no deeper reason for it - only leaky experience.

  • So why the mass-energy conservation law should be preserved in general?


    There is no deeper reason for it - only leaky experience.

    No, there is more than experience:


    It is well supported by Einstein's theory, which is right in all other particulars as far as anyone knows. Many aspects of the theory have been tested by experiment, and found to be correct. Such as the effect of gravity on time, which was tested by moving an atomic clock one floor up above another, and observing the deviation.


    In every particle physics experiment so far, the conservation of mass-energy has been confirmed.


    The macroscopic conservation of mass and the conservation of energy (separately) have been confirmed in every experiment so far, and that goes back to the 18th century. With a macroscopic system, there is no way to measure the transformation from mass to energy. It is too small. In the future if instruments improve it might be measured, just as the relativistic effects of gravity on time have been observed.


    Since we cannot even measure macroscopic mass-energy conversion at present, I think you are not justified in doubting it. There can be no evidence that it is not happening. Since it happens on a microscopic scale, we have every reason to think it also happens on a macroscopic scale.

  • But we didn't observe it - actually the physicists even didn't start to look for it. So why the mass-energy conservation law should be preserved in general?

    There is no deeper reason for it - only leaky experience.


    You may not regard it as a reason, but it is a fact the each conservation law that applies to a physical quantity is intimately connected to a symmetry.


    As an example, the laws of physics are invariant with respect to translation in time. That is, an experiment that is performed today will give the same result if done tomorrow. This is regarded as a symmetry and the conservation law that is implied by this symmetry is conservation of energy.


    The first person to investigate these connections thoroughly was the remarkable mathematician Emmy Noether.


    Note. It is a possibility that LENR experiments being notoriously difficult to replicate are so because they cause spontaneous time symmetry breaking thereby invalidating the conservation of energy. X/

  • Quote

    No, there is more than experience: It is well supported by Einstein's theory,


    Jesus Christ: the Einstein's theory is derived by utilizing the energy-mass conservation law everywhere: it wouldn't violate it even if it could (and it actually can). And theoretical support means anything in experimental physics, which just looks for violation of theories. The same applies to Noether theorems which also utilize momentum conservation law - not just energy conservation. Whereas the EM/Woodward drive violate mass-energy conservation law only indirectly so far, we can be already sure they violate momentum conservation law.


    Quote

    I'm personally curious to have Shawyer's drive brought into proximity with a neutrino detector and see if anything is detected.


    Neutrinos can be hardly generated by EMDrive - but scalar waves can and they can be detected easily. But the simplest EMDrive detector would be another EMDrive, because every radiator also behaves like an antenna. It just means that thrust of each EMDrive should depend on the position of another EMDrive running nearby....


    wDfXsaR.gif

  • As an example, the laws of physics are invariant with respect to translation in time.


    This is only valid for macroscopic space where time is a free variable. Below de Broglie radius there is no free time and thus Einsteins laws no longer hold.


    A part of the LENR reaction is running below de Broglie radius. EM-drive, ether energy is assumed to be of even deeper (= smaller space dimensions) origin, where we don't know any physical laws yet.


    Thus I would give the experimenters a fair chance, as they had for the last 200 years too. And don't expect a working theory at the moment, where we just notice that standard theory fails for LENR...

  • ... carefully re-analysed.

    Worrying experiment that identify a new artifact possibility with twisted pairs interacting with earth magnetic field


    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…ach-effect-thrusters.html


    more experiment needed, but many experiment are now to be improved...

    Future will say.

  • Jesus Christ: the Einstein's theory is derived by utilizing the energy-mass conservation law everywhere: it wouldn't violate it even if it could (and it actually can). And theoretical support means anything in experimental physics, which just looks for violation of theories. The same applies to Noether theorems which also utilize momentum conservation law - not just energy conservation. Whereas the EM/Woodward drive violate mass-energy conservation law only indirectly so far, we can be already sure they violate momentum conservation law.


    Emmy Noether did not use the conservation laws, she derived them from different symmetries that our physical word exhibits.


    Time translation symmetry => Conservation of energy => Perpetuum mobile machine of the first kind does not work


    Space translation symmetry => Conservation of momentum => EM Drive (above) does not work


    And more ...


  • Zephir,


    At the risk of labouring the point, your argument here in fact points the opposite direction. You point out that for 26 years an anomaly that could mean violation of mass-energy conservation, or else some new particle existed. It is a great vindication of mass-energy conservation that the particle was in fact found. Theories that make correct predictions of future evidence, like this, become more powerful, so that there is now more confidence that any m-e apparent anomaly will in fact be another new particle.


    Scientists would indeed look for new particles to explain Woodward and Shawyer drives (needed for momentum conservation, not m-e conservation) except that in both cases the experimental evidence is very weak, with replicated (better quality) experiments showing lower effects, and clear error mechanisms in both cases that are difficult to rule out. I'm really sorry about this. It would be great (though unexpected) to have a reactionless drive.

  • Quote

    Emmy Noether did not use the conservation laws, she derived them from different symmetries that our physical word exhibits.


    These symmetries are based on conservation laws anyway - a classical circular reasoning. What I pointed out was, the apparent violation of mass-energy conservation law has lead into finding of new particles, which supported it later - so I presume, that Woodward and Shawyer drives are another case of this paradigm. Just the particles which they generate are even more lightweight, numerous and elusive than the neutrinos and their detection may took even longer time, than at the case of neutrinos in their era. Until we find them, then we should consider mass-energy conservation violated in similar way, like Dirac - the inventor of neutrinos - did.


  • These symmetries are based on conservation laws anyway - a classical circular reasoning. What I pointed out was, the apparent violation of mass-energy conservation law has lead into finding of new particles, which supported it later - so I presume, that Woodward and Shawyer drives are another case of this paradigm. Just the particles which they generate are even more lightweight, numerous and elusive than the neutrinos and their detection may took even longer time, than at the case of neutrinos in their era. Until we find them, then we should consider mass-energy conservation violated in similar way, like Dirac - the inventor of neutrinos - did.


    Zephir - the fact that conservation laws are based on symmetries brings the full weight of Occam's razor to their support. For example, while you can imagine a space in which translational symmetry did not hold, so that different regions of space had different physical laws, this is a lot more complex than the same laws everywhere (a symmetry).


    Now as far as Woodward and Shawyer go, I agree that new particles would be one option to consider were they to be shown real. But the evidence thus far for either effect existing is poor. Your statement: Until we find them, then we should consider mass-energy conservation violated in similar way supposes that the evidence is clear-cut and irrefutable., which is incorrect. Even were the evidence clear-cut it remains the wrong way to express this: we would be wise to consider the liklihood of undetected particles, or some other issue, rather than violation of these fundamental conservation laws. this is what in the past has been the case.