Strange Facts and Amazing Articles
A19: Propulsion - PlasmaJet, IonicJet, and the Antigravity Engines
COROLLARY THEOREMS: Complexity is in fact deceiving simplicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most under average-intelligence people believe that fluorescent bulbs are more energy-efficient than incandescent bulbs. There is little wonder that Australia [first] and Canada [second] intend--this is stunning--to ban incandescent bulbs! It is possible other countries could "join" this hellish idea, therefore we do have to take some action with this article. Now, each the two mentioned governments employs scores of well-paid, well-fed, and greatly rewarded "technical experts" to help them rule "wisely". Those "experts" have delivered, and the result is: ban the incandescent bulbs to lower the "polluting emissions"! In reality, that may happen only in their governmental diagrams. Just a shade further from "details" there is Global Picture, as follows: A. Fluorescent bulbs work with mercury--a terrible poison--and that means we save on "polluting emissions" at the expense of poisoning our environment with mercury. Regardless of how careful we are, a good percentage of fluorescent bulbs ends up today--and tomorrow--broken, therefore they release uncontrollably the mercury they contain. If we complain about "global warming" these days, tomorrow we may have "global-scale mercury poisoning". Please, DO NOT FOOL WITH MERCURY POISONING PEOPLE! B. Fluorescent light is terrible for human eyes because it is a narrow-band optical radiation. This was never publicized: using fluorescent light is ruining our eyesight. That is the reason most people experience headaches after the first 2..3 hours at their workplace if fluorescent light is used intensively. Consider this: in addition to being a narrow-band optical radiation--therefore, terrible for any eye, animal or human--fluorescent light is pulsing at 60 Hz in N America (and possibly in Australia) and at 50 Hz in Europe and the rest of the World. Although 60 Hz is a bit better, it is still EXTREMELY straining for our eyes. Consequently, people feel "tired" and "sleepy" after the first few hours at work. Just a rough estimation, it is possible people work at under 40% of their intellectual capacity due to improper--more precise, torture-like--illumination conditions at their work places. Further, damaged or tired eyes generate a lot of abnormal functionality for your entire organism in general, and for your nervous system in particular. In contrast, incandescent bulbs have a very slow raise/fall thermal curve, therefore the pulsing nature of the power grid disappears COMPLETELY! In rich countries, where fluorescent light is used a lot, and preferentially, the percentage of people having vision troubles is overwhelmingly alarming. For those who do not know, over 75% of the eye-glass wearing people could throw them away if they take care of their eyes appropriately. What they need is plenty of natural light, and a distant, nice horizon/sky-line to watch. The eye is an extremely complex organ, and it does have the capacity to correct impaired vision by ITSELF! All you need to do to help your eyes recover is to eliminate all sources of narrow-band optical radiation--the fluorescent light! Mind this: the closest artificial light to the natural one--the sunlight--is generated ONLY by the old, reliable incandescent bulb. C. Incandescent bulbs may be easily improved to become 10 times more energy-efficient than they are today. Just think of the nice, white light generated by a little flashlight bulb working at 3V! Unfortunately, the experts--people having stunning resumes with tens of years of light-bulbs experience--advocate/promote only the fluorescent light. The psychological drive behind that is, the incandescent light bulb is way too simple, technically, while the florescent one offers tempting and exciting grounds for "technical ingenuity"! People adore making things far more complex than the need to be. Note again that fluorescent light is terribly damaging for our eyes in particular, and for our health in general--just talk about this with a true specialist doctor, if you will ever manage to find a honest/humanitarian one. D. In spite of the apparent savings in energy when they are normally used, fluorescent bulbs have additional, hidden energy-costs related to their complex fabrication process, and to the technology needed to destroy them safely. Overall, fluorescent bulbs are a lot more "energy inefficient", and they do generate way MORE "polluting emissions". E. Due to their ballasts or switching drivers, fluorescent light generates harmonics in the power grid. The costs associated to combating harmonics are staggering today, and they will be prohibitive in the future. F. Finally--we need to end this, although there is a lot to talk about--in order to compensate for the narrow-band radiation, the power of the equivalent fluorescent light installed is always MORE than when employing incandescent bulbs. For example, if a 40W incandescent bulb is sufficient, the designers will install TWO 40W fluorescent lights for a total of 80W of consumed power. This is already done in all places where fluorescent light has been implemented. Saving on emissions you say? Ha! This little social-psychology incident is a perfect example of the existing/real level of average social intelligence (read A38). The only puzzling aspect is that Australia is the first, and Canada the second ... or maybe not. The truly bright idea would have been to replace all indoors existing fluorescent bulbs with incandescent ones. As for reducing the existing polluting emissions, there are very, very many way better strategies; all it takes is just a little bit of intelligence. [Fragment from "Global Picture in News" April 26, 2007. © Corollary Theorems Ltd.] *  Natural antigravity was first described in
THREE
STORIES FROM HILSA'N TASSA GALAXY, the PEASANT AMBASSADOR story. It says there
that the antigravity vector exists naturally
in all atoms; however, we cannot "see" its manifestations, because the gravity component is greater. The
obvious question is: "How is it possible the gravity vector is greater than the antigravity one?" We
are used to see forces and reactions to those forces that balance each other; how could a force and its reaction
be imbalanced?We mentioned few times by now the Universal Imbalance Principle, and time has come to explain it--better said, only a part of it. Now, we have few Physics Laws, among which the Energy Conservation Law is the most important. This law says: Energy is not created; energy is not consumed; energy changes, only, from one form to another. As you can see, all Physics Laws, principles, and theorems start from a statement, or a set of statements as the one above. Mathematical implementation of those statements comes later, and it may take many forms. Anyway, the point to note is, the Energy Conservation Law is one of the most important one in Physics, if not THE most important. Hundreds and thousands of corollary theorems have been postulated, based on this law--for example, consider Kirchhoff's equations for electrical nets: they were written according to the Energy Conservation Law.  The point to note is, this mighty Law brings a perplexing observation: before the Big-Bang Time Zero there was NOTHING. Next, the Big-Bang comes, and that pops-up a terrible amount of energy into the Atomic Universe. In fact, it looks like that energy it is still being injected today in this side--please read our previous articles. It appears the Energy Conservation Law doesn't work in this Big Bag spectacular instance which is also THE most important one. The truth is the Law works just fine. All energies existing in our Atomic Universe come from Subatomic, from Primary Energies--details are presented in THREE STORIES FROM HILSA'N TASSA GALAXY and in MERCY.  The problem is, we cannot measure, or detect those Primary Energies, and many doubt they actually exist. They HAVE TO EXIST otherwise the great Energy Conservation Law it is not right, and 99% of our Physics is totally wrong. However, the point to note is, those Primary Energies ARE NOT energies as we know them; they are SOMETHING capable of GENERATING energies in our Atomic Universe. In the Subatomic, Primary Energies are not capable to react with each other. In fact, the few Physics Laws we know are different there--we will take a closer look at this aspect later. Now, if we do not take the Primary Energies into consideration, then our entire Atomic Universe makes no sense. The Universal Imbalance Principle, says: There is a flow of [energy] from the Subatomic Universe into the Atomic one, due to ... We didn't finish the above statement because we do not intend to discuss the causes of that unidirectional flow of energy--this deals with the Certitude Factors and with the Fundamental Reasons, but these notions are so fantastic at this time, that it would be totally futile to attempt explaining them to you. We will do that gradually, starting in our SF books. That imbalance is extremely important, because if it would cease now, then the entire Atomic Universe would disappear instantly. Even more, the imbalance is needed to form matter [atoms] in the Atomic Universe. Consider this, our Atomic Universe is now 90% Hydrogen atoms, but it was 100% monoatomic hydrogen atoms shortly after the Big-Bang. All hydrogen atoms miss exactly one electron, in order to complete their "s" electronic orbital, and that means our Atomic Universe is positively charged, chemically and electrically. Now, the true beauty is, that perplexing extra positive charge of the monoatomic hydrogen atom DOES NOT COME from the proton! The question is: "Is that electrical imbalance of our Atomic Universe a good thing or a bad one?" Not only it is a good thing, but it is also a necessary one. This time, the CREATOR--or Mother Nature--gives us another example of PERFECTION BASED ON IMPERFECTION. If the Hydrogen atom had a complete "s" electronic orbital, then Hydrogen would have been an inert element, a noble gas, therefore it wouldn't reacted with other elements. There would be no higher, active, atomic mass elements--better said, there could be higher atomic mass elements but almost all of them would also be inert, chemically. That clearly exemplifies the fact that our Atomic Universe has been built for optimum performance. As it is mentioned in our SF books, the antigravity vector exists in all atoms and it is equal to the gravity one. However, antigravity is much consumed inside the atom, while gravity is needed to structure the matter in the outside-atom and macro-cosmos. Now, the antigravity vector may be amplified, and there are many practical ways of doing that.  The difficult thing with these articles is, we try to change the existing mechanical mentality using notions that are too difficult to understand because they do not exist--except in our SF books and in these articles. The good news is, we do not have to listen to absurd arguments, therefore we are able to continue with our articles unobstructed. In time, after many SF books and Amazing Articles, some people will start "believing", and that is going to be a very good starting point.  Anyway,
someone mentioned to us that we do not have engines strong enough to
replace the Discovery Shuttle reactive, reusable boosters. That is
perfectly true, but it is only because we didn't try hard enough to research
for a better engine than the chemical reactive one. The efforts should be focused towards implementing the
antigravity engine. That is going to take some time, say, 25 .. 50 .. 100 years, but the idea is, we
need to start sooner rather than later--in fact, the best time is right now. It is just a matter of planning and good
organization; therefore, we will summarize here a rough scenario. First, although the final purpose is the
antigravity engine, the research activity needs to be developed in parallel with other practical applications; for
example, the first engine to be developed should be the plasma jet one."How?" will ask most of our readers. You see, up to now we have developed simple applications based on a single principle, say, reaction OR internal combustion. Time has come to consider a "chain" of engines, or Physics effects, in order to obtain increased performances. The "hybrid" vehicles we use today are an excellent example. In the plasma jet case, we should start with a plasma generator, then with an electrical generator, and then with an ionic reactor. The working fluid used should be water; better said monatomic hydrogen and oxygen. That is the least polluting option, and it also has a lot of internal energy: it is only up to us to use the most of it. That plasma jet engine needs to be further developed and optimized into the more performing ionic jet engine--again, while working in parallel on the antigravity engine one. *** First published on July 20, 2005 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Send your
comments regarding this page using support@corollarytheorems.com Page last updated on: April 21, 2009 © Corollary Theorems Ltd. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
