Jump to content
NineTwentyEight

An experiment that could shoot stable fusion down

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

You need to encase a circular array of polarized light filters in a donut shaped mirror and let one spot open for sunlight (a sorting demon like doorway) or your flashlight to get into it and see if you can't get more energy than you put in. 

 

The first time around the energy put in will drop to 75% but adding another ray along side that 75% should give you 150% by letting the second ray in by opening the door and not letting out the first beam.

You can't harness this vacuum energy unless apart of the donut is just magnifying glass. At thousands of percent energy input one could collide spiraling rays of gamma shifted photons, and then on top another quasi particle, and you get to push quarks out of the magnifying glass. It either creates beams of quasiparticles or the experiment is a failure. 

 

Edited by NineTwentyEight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

You need to encase a circular array of polarized light filters in a donut shaped mirror and let one spot open for sunlight (a sorting demon like doorway) or your flashlight to get into it and see if you can't get more energy than you put in. 

 

The first time around the energy put in will drop to 75% but adding another ray along side that 75% should give you 150% by letting the second ray in by opening the door and not letting out the first beam.

But you’ve added 200%. You will not get more energy than you put in.

 

43 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

You can't harness this vacuum energy unless apart of the donut is just magnifying glass. At thousands of percent energy input one could collide spiraling rays of gamma shifted photons, and then on top another quasi particle, and you get to push quarks out of the magnifying glass. It either creates beams of quasiparticles or the experiment is a failure. 

These devices already exist. Power buildup cavities. You get more power inside but not more energy.

Similar setup for lasers, if there is a gain medium inside the cavity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you’ve added 200%. You will not get more energy than you put in.

 

These devices already exist. Power buildup cavities. You get more power inside but not more energy.

Similar setup for lasers, if there is a gain medium inside the cavity.

A lot of light after a sustained power buildup doesn't need more energy intake, if the quasiparticles are successfully built the thing needs no energy put in, light from the beam that it's generating will circulate back into the system (if you sort demon the door at the right time to not let out anything being put back in). 

I doubt we have anything like that, and if we do it's from Roswell. The venn diagram paradox is a good source of vacuum energy and with the perfect array this should work. I do intend to test such things. 

Edited by NineTwentyEight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to go to roswell, just a hardware store.

Buy a hammer.

Lift it up then drop it on a rock.

Calculate the power input to the hammer, and the power output delivered to the rock.

1 hour ago, NineTwentyEight said:

You need to encase a circular array of polarized light filters in a donut shaped mirror and let one spot open for sunlight (a sorting demon like doorway) or your flashlight to get into it and see if you can't get more energy than you put in. 

 

The first time around the energy put in will drop to 75% but adding another ray along side that 75% should give you 150% by letting the second ray in by opening the door and not letting out the first beam.

You can't harness this vacuum energy unless apart of the donut is just magnifying glass. At thousands of percent energy input one could collide spiraling rays of gamma shifted photons, and then on top another quasi particle, and you get to push quarks out of the magnifying glass. It either creates beams of quasiparticles or the experiment is a failure. 

 

If you draw a picture it will be more clear what you are wrong about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You don't need to go to roswell, just a hardware store.

Buy a hammer.

Lift it up then drop it on a rock.

Calculate the power input to the hammer, and the power output delivered to the rock.

If you draw a picture it will be more clear what you are wrong about.

I don't see how you can compare kinetic energy from macro-objects to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mirrors are made of matter with reflective properties. Reflectivity of material changes with temperature. e.g. metals are reflective at small temperatures, and lose this property as temperature increases. If you successfully manage to trap photons from any light emitting source in a box and they will be bouncing from walls back and forth, part of their energy will be absorbed by mirrors and their temperature will increase. With increase of temperature they will start losing more and more reflectivity and more photons will be absorbed. Perfect mirrors would end up melting entire device sooner or later.

Photons with higher energy than visible light will create quantum effects, such as photoelectric effect at lower energies, ionization at higher energy of UVs and x-rays, pair-production and photodisintegration by gamma photons..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Perfect mirrors would end up melting entire device sooner or later.

Well the great thing about quasi-particle printing is replacing molecular parts. Just match the strong nuclear force for atoms that make "perfect mirrors".

If the sorting door is at 6 o'clock than the magnifying glass section for the donut would have to be at 12 o'clock to feed itself so the beam goes straight to the door. For the actual experiment at least, the molecular assembly won't be apart of it. You only need to show it work once before polarizing light filters start melting for the experiment portion. 

Edited by NineTwentyEight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

These devices already exist. Power buildup cavities. You get more power inside but not more energy.

Maybe misleading? I think you're referring to what engineers call reactive or imaginary power, which is related to stored energy and is measured in volt-amperes, not watts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NineTwentyEight said:

A lot of light after a sustained power buildup doesn't need more energy intake, if the quasiparticles are successfully built the thing needs no energy put in, light from the beam that it's generating will circulate back into the system (if you sort demon the door at the right time to not let out anything being put back in). 

Mirrors aren’t perfect, so you always need more energy intake.

Can you explain the physics behind making these quasiparticles, and how that won’t cost any energy? In fact, that you get extra energy because this light “will circulate back into the system”

1 hour ago, NineTwentyEight said:

I doubt we have anything like that, and if we do it's from Roswell. The venn diagram paradox is a good source of vacuum energy and with the perfect array this should work. I do intend to test such things. 

If you mean the “demon” then yes, we probably don’t have anything like that.

 

55 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

Well the great thing about quasi-particle printing is replacing molecular parts. Just match the strong nuclear force for atoms that make "perfect mirrors".

Can we have some actual physics here, rather than hand-waving? What quasi-particles, specifically? Where is a citation for these “perfect mirrors”?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

Mirrors aren’t perfect, so you always need more energy intake.

Can you explain the physics behind making these quasiparticles, and how that won’t cost any energy? In fact, that you get extra energy because this light “will circulate back into the system”

If you mean the “demon” then yes, we probably don’t have anything like that.

 

Imagine the polarized rays as quark screws that you use to open a wine bottle. If two of the screw connect from multiple directions, that point of contact between multiple polarized rays will for all intents and purposes become a positron or an up quark or what have, depending on the severity of the gamma shift. How would it circulate more light back into the system, will any positively charged particle will emit light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Maybe misleading? I think you're referring to what engineers call reactive or imaginary power, which is related to stored energy and is measured in volt-amperes, not watts.

 

I’m talking about an optical buildup cavity. You would not use Volt-Amps to describe the power, as there is no current involved. It’s not electrical 

Just now, NineTwentyEight said:

Imagine the polarized rays as quark screws that you use to open a wine bottle. If two of the screw connect from multiple directions, that point of contact between multiple polarized rays will for all intents and purposes become a positron or an up quark or what have, depending on the severity of the gamma shift. How would it circulate more light back into the system, will any positively charged particle will emit light. 

No, this isn’t based in any actual physics. This isn’t the “make stuff up” forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

No, this isn’t based in any actual physics. 

Real physics is results, I would agree. You can't say, when any actual physics has been done it's been the result of an experiment. You can't say how colliding light rays at several different locations wouldn't result in quasi particles, one collision could push the next. You can't say that's wrong when such a thing hasn't been tested yet. 

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

If you mean the “demon” then yes, we probably don’t have anything like that.

 

We have hands and the ability to do math, the rudimentary stage is always the physical experiment. 

I mean in the experiment, I am the sorting demon, letting light in through opening a door and preventing light from getting out by closing it. Use c to get the timing right, c in a very small space is still calculable and not quite instantaneous. 

3 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

It either creates beams of quasiparticles or the experiment is a failure. 

 

Scientific method. I'm getting a lot of whys, but I respond why not? Experimentation will who is right. 

Edited by NineTwentyEight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m talking about an optical buildup cavity. You would not use Volt-Amps to describe the power, as there is no current involved. It’s not electrical

Could the same amount of power as is in the (I presume resonant) cavity be continuously removed from it and it still be a buildup cavity?

If not, some of the power is no more available than the power of a swinging pendulum as it converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back to kinetic energy again.

 

I might try to convince a keen equestrian non-scientist that going for a walk to warm up is more eco friendly than sitting in front of a four horsepower heater. He might disregard my suggestion as horsepower is not electrical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

Suffice it to say, a lot of different types of "energy" go into this apparatus. 

!

Moderator Note

No, that isn't sufficient. 

This is a science forum. We expect more rigour than that. What types of energy? Quantify them. Why is "energy" in quotes.

Moved to Speculations. But unless you can start providing some science, the thread will be closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carrock said:

Could the same amount of power as is in the (I presume resonant) cavity be continuously removed from it and it still be a buildup cavity?

If you remove as much as you add, the power will not build up. IOW, the buildup ends when the power lost equals the power added.

 

10 hours ago, Carrock said:

If not, some of the power is no more available than the power of a swinging pendulum as it converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back to kinetic energy again.

The point of having a large power can be the existence of a very strong electric field from having so many photons around.

 

10 hours ago, Carrock said:

I might try to convince a keen equestrian non-scientist that going for a walk to warm up is more eco friendly than sitting in front of a four horsepower heater. He might disregard my suggestion as horsepower is not electrical.

There was also the use of reactive power, which is an electrical term. 

9 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

Suffice it to say, a lot of different types of "energy" go into this apparatus. 

Minimum rigor for a physics discussion would include describing all of these energy terms. Passing it off as other kinds of energy might work as a Star Trek plot device, but this is not supposed to be science fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark force that little addition to of 25% gained by adding polarizing filters is an effect called the QVD paradox. Other energy are mass particles specifically assembled by crossing the polarized rays. Even if the mirrors contain some of the energy it's fraction of a percent and does not take away self-sustenance or prevent longterm buildup of vacuum energy of the array. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

Real physics is results, I would agree. You can't say, when any actual physics has been done it's been the result of an experiment. You can't say how colliding light rays at several different locations wouldn't result in quasi particles, one collision could push the next. You can't say that's wrong when such a thing hasn't been tested yet. 

We have tested it though, after a fashion. People put light into buildup cavities all the time. Your conjecture says there will be some result. What we want is details of the predictions, based on some model.

 

11 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

We have hands and the ability to do math, the rudimentary stage is always the physical experiment.

No, theory precedes experiment in many cases. Relativity, lasers, Bose-Einstein condensates all were described in theory before being found experimentally. 

 

11 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

I mean in the experiment, I am the sorting demon, letting light in through opening a door and preventing light from getting out by closing it. Use c to get the timing right, c in a very small space is still calculable and not quite instantaneous. 

I don't care how it happens. You are suggesting that energy is not conserved, or thet some other energy is involved. Those details can't be glossed over.

 

11 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

Scientific method. I'm getting a lot of whys, but I respond why not? Experimentation will who is right. 

You need to be more specific than "quasiparticles" The experimenters need to know specifically what to look for.

3 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

Dark force that little addition to of 25% gained by adding polarizing filters is an effect called the QVD paradox. Other energy are mass particles specifically assembled by crossing the polarized rays. Even if the mirrors contain some of the energy it's fraction of a percent and does not take away self-sustenance or prevent longterm buildup of vacuum energy of the array. 

Google doesn't know what the QVD paradox is. Can you explain, and link to some reputable source on this?

"mass particles specifically assembled by crossing the polarized rays" - what particles? electrons, neutrons? It won't just be an up quark, as you had mentioned earlier, because quarks do not exist on their own. Plus there are conservation laws in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sort of like postulating that mass particles from the vacuum can be ignited by photon collisions. Even positrons can emit light that will feed back into the array without any outside source. 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't care how it happens. You are suggesting that energy is not conserved, or thet some other energy is involved. Those details can't be glossed over.

particularly :

 

 

 

And no, this hasn't even been tested yet, we don't use the QVD the way your describing pre-existing experiments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

It's sort of like postulating that mass particles from the vacuum can be ignited by photon collisions. Even positrons can emit light that will feed back into the array without any outside source. 

We have a specific description of how photons create electron-positron pairs, and how they can annihilate to create photons. You seem to be postulating something different, and explaining none of it.  

"feed back into the array"? 

Stop posting word salad.

5 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

It's sort of like postulating that mass particles from the vacuum can be ignited by photon collisions. Even positrons can emit light that will feed back into the array without any outside source. 

particularly :

 

 

 

And no, this hasn't even been tested yet, we don't use the QVD the way your describing pre-existing experiments. 

Building speculation on top of other speculation will not fly. You have to demonstrate the basic idea before you can build on it, and you need more rigor.

Also, need to explain what QVD is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, swansont said:

We have a specific description of how photons create electron-positron pairs, and how they can annihilate to create photons. You seem to be postulating something different, and explaining none of it.  

"feed back into the array"? 

Stop posting word salad.

Building speculation on top of other speculation will not fly. You have to demonstrate the basic idea before you can build on it, and you need more rigor.

Also, need to explain what QVD is. 

Well hang on there is a precedence for this:

It's the same as postulating we can dump 20% of the suns radiation focused into a single point to create a thermodynamic black hole

 

QVDP:

 

 

That should arise enough suspicion to give merit to the experiment. 

 

And again I haven't done the experiment so I'm not saying the self sustenance would work yet either way is fine with me. 

If the beams cross at like 100 points to create positrons and electrons, they can be pushed by newer generations so as to pass right by the opening and emit light back into the donut. 

It doesn't have to conserve 100% of the energy to ignite (self sustaining) the process. It only needs to conserve the vast majority of energy (light)

That is, the photon emission of the light based quasiparticles in this system only needs to surpass what energy is not reflected by the mirror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

QVDP

!

Moderator Note

That is about the triple phasor paradox which would be TPP not QCDP

 
35 minutes ago, NineTwentyEight said:

And again I haven't done the experiment so I'm not saying the self sustenance would work yet either way is fine with me. 

!

Moderator Note

That is not how it works. You should be able to provide a theoretical justification for your claims. Your random word salad does not meet the standards of rigour required by the forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.