It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible Free Energy Breakthrough

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Thought this worth flagging. Perhaps one of the scientists here could comment.



Scientists have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit.

This is hotter than the interior of our Sun, which is about 15 million degrees Kelvin, and also hotter than any previous temperature ever achieved on Earth, they say.

They don't know how they did it.

One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma’s ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions.


www.livescience.com...




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Ya i saw that one too. Its very interesting.
First part I like is they dont know how they did it, and second a scientist
proposes that an energy source from an unknown origin must have caused
the increase. Very very cool

[edit on 9-3-2006 by imbalanced]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
forgive my ignorance, but how in the hell do they shield themselves from and effectively measure such heats? wouldn't that break down any known material within 100 yards?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
First, please remember that this story was written to explain an enormously complex experiment to the average layperson.



The Z Machine is now able to propel small plates at 34 kilometers a second, faster than the 30 kilometers per second that Earth travels through space in its orbit about the Sun. That’s 50 times faster than a rifle bullet, and three times the velocity needed to escape Earth’s gravitational field.

The ultra-tiny aluminum plates, just 850 microns thick, are accelerated at 1010 g. One g is the force of Earth’s gravity. Doing so without vaporizing the plates was possible because of the finer control now achievable of the magnetic field pulse that drives the flight.

Z’s hurled plates strike a target after traveling only five millimeters, or less than a quarter-inch. The impact generates a shock wave -- in some cases, reaching 15 million times atmospheric pressure -- that passes through the target material. The waves are so powerful that they turn solids into liquids, liquids into gases, and gases into plasmas in the same way that heat melts ice to water or boils water into steam.



The instantaneous energy generated by the device is, of course, freaking huge [a scientific term]. The average energy, i.e. when averaged over the repetition rate of the experiment is not very much at all.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
forgive my ignorance, but how in the hell do they shield themselves from and effectively measure such heats? wouldn't that break down any known material within 100 yards?


The shielding they use, as well as the magnetic confinment fields keep it at a safe distance from the outer containment shell of the torus. Frankely I'm surprised it held considering that the theoretical maximum temperature of fusion is in the hundreds of millions of degrees, not billions, so the containment vessel would only be engineered to withstand the expected temperatures.

This is quite significant, though it's not "free" energy, as fuel is consumed by the reaction.



The instantaneous energy generated by the device is, of course, freaking huge [a scientific term]. The average energy, i.e. when averaged over the repetition rate of the experiment is not very much at all.


You're quoting the wrong article. The find here is the temperature involved, which is in the billions of degrees. If the containment torus was able to withstand that, then I don't see any reason why we can't start to conduct tests of Helium-3 based Fusion which startup temps are I believe in the half billion degree range.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Other than the fact your headline is totally erroneous, this is a nice article. A better story though is available at:

www.physorg.com...

The excess time of sustainment of the high temperature (about 10 nanosecs) is believed to be due to electron/ion friction caused by micro-turbulences--see article above.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Other than the fact your headline is totally erroneous, this is a nice article. A better story though is available at:

www.physorg.com...


Nice article, I can't believe I missed that on physorg. I also agree with the headline bit, if it wasn't for the fact that I was bored stiff and in a debunking mood, then I would never have checked out this thread.



First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input.


This is even more significant!


Anyone know the efficiency of x-ray to electricity conversion?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Good thread. I’m also surprised I missed that article at PhysOrg. I visit that site most every day; it’s a good source of info.

At any rate, my comment isn’t on the article’s content, but rather on it’s addition/membership to a special group of highly important, critical discoveries made over the last 5 years that possess the potential of changing Humanity and what it means to be Human. This group includes, but is not limited to, Dr. Franklin Felber’s recent solution of Einstein’s gravitational field equation to account for masses moving near the speed of light, recent discoveries/advances in nanotechnology, recent advances in Quantum Computing (particularly in the area of creating Quantum logic gates), mind-blowing advances in biology and genetics that may lead to anti-aging and the possibility of living indefinitely within the next 10-20 years, etc. We’re making these striking breakthroughs at such an incredible rate it’s, on the one hand, awesome in that we are verging on a world of magical dimensions, and on the other hand, a bit uneasy in that we are putting devastating power into the hands of those who might misuse it.

I’m all for rapid technological growth; it fascinates and excites me. My degree was in math, and I’ve worked on a very technical level with computers for years, for cryin’ out loud. To my thinking, it would be a crime to stifle the advancement of technology and to place limits/bounds on the growth of our knowledge. I only hope we’re wise enough to put our increasing knowledge to good use.

Nice thread.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
netbound, would you agree that Technological growth is growing at an exponential rate now?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Perhaps these scientists have Nikola Teslas' work as their foundations for such experiments.

Tesla found that shumans cavity (sp?) could sustain energy of 6 to 8 hertz and that this energy can me amplified anywhere in the world, and the resulting energy can be taken from anywhere in the world.... the beginning of free energy....a greedy little investor said 'where's the meter' and thus...the project was never finalised. 6 to 8 hertz is also the range of the electrical signals functioning in the brain.... and the thus the theory of HAARP and control over 6 to 8 hertz....



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
netbound, would you agree that Technological growth is growing at an exponential rate now?


sardion, I'm not sure of exponential, but certainly geometric. It's astonishing in any case ...



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Growth is definitely exponential, but the exponents are probably not whole numbers--considered on a year to year basis, just decimal increases as yet. Getting faster all the time though and it's exciting as hell to watch.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Growth is definitely exponential, but the exponents are probably not whole numbers--considered on a year to year basis, just decimal increases as yet. Getting faster all the time though and it's exciting as hell to watch.


Technology increases exponentially where the degree is n>0, and decreases when n may be negative if and only if, when the rate at which technology increases is a polynomial function with real coeffecients and nonzero constant term, there exist an amount of zeros not equal to the sign change...there, I think I've said enough nonsense after 2 hours of study.

But we must be careful as to what technology is increasing. Technology increasing exponentially means almost nothing to me, it could be military hardware/software meant to help the CIA kill another thousand people which is increasing. Nothing I am interested in.

I would also like to take this time to say that I believe that there is a current nano fad which places improper assumptions on the advancement (current assesment) of technology. Truthfully, I wouldn't mind seeing the nano fad collapse in favor of a return to science.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
I would also like to take this time to say that I believe that there is a current nano fad which places improper assumptions on the advancement (current assesment) of technology. Truthfully, I wouldn't mind seeing the nano fad collapse in favor of a return to science.


You could also apply this logic to Microtechnology back in the 70s, if what you want to happen to the current nano "fad," were to happen to the micro "fad" back then, where would we be today hmm? We most likely wouldn't be posting stuff like this on a message board, I can say that with certainty. Nanotech is just the next logical step beyond Microtech, every field of Science and Engineering will benefit more or less in the long run. (Minus the so-called "social sciences").

How do you define science btw?

I define it as the study of the natural world.

This Nano "fad" definately fits into that definition nicely.

Frosty if you want to discuss this some more I suggest you start up a new thread as this is waaay off topic.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
But we must be careful as to what technology is increasing. Technology increasing exponentially means almost nothing to me, it could be military hardware/software meant to help the CIA kill another thousand people which is increasing. Nothing I am interested in.


I have some graphs and info you may be interested in.

Not too sure of the rigor behind the research behind this information, I wan't to believe it
All images a from this wiki article.

en.wikipedia.org...

external image

external image

*resized images*

[edit on 21-3-2006 by dbates]




top topics



 
0

log in

join