Sent:
Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject:
RE: Ken Rauen Explains Dr. Mill's Blacklightpower process
Les,
Well, if
you go deeply into it, it gets very complicated
very fast. But there is reason to the rhyme.
E.g.: what
is a sub-quantum
atom? Sub-quantum normally
means VIRTUAL. And a virtual electron, virtual
atom, whatever
would normally “radiate” except
in the virtual state,
subquantally. So the
better statement might be that
a virtual-state
atom has no
observable EM radiation.
From where
I’m coming, dark matter is an
related but somewhat
different thing, using the Dirac sea model of the vacuum. The “electron
vacuum” (the normal vacuum) is comprised of negative
mass-energy holes, each filled with a positive-energy electron. We know
(and nonequilibrium thermodynamics agrees, since it directly allows violation
of the second law of thermodynamics almost
at will) that
a strong gradient across a little region of the vacuum will lift out some
of those hidden electrons, providing a sudden real electron current (often
encountered in the Lenz law effect where one sharply tries to reverse an
ongoing process involving a current; momentarily the ongoing current
INCREASES, and of course that
is measured many times and long since experimentally shown and validated.
What the electrical engineering
Lenz law effect “model” does not normally consider is (1) where the excess
electrons came from and how, and (2) what
was the corresponding effect on the vacuum from which the electrons were
lifted? Indeed, that does leave
behind –
at least momentarily – some
“unfilled” Dirac holes (again, which are NEGATIVE MASS ENERGY ELECTRONS).
As source charges themselves, these negative
mass-energy electrons emit NEGATIVE ENERGY photons which,
at light speed, produce and
continually replenish the associated
NEGATIVE ENERGY EM FIELDS of those negative
mass-energy electrons (those holes).
In my view,
these negative mass-energy
electrons (holes) and their currents are in fact the long-sought “dark matter”,
and they produce ANTI-gravity rather
than gravity, due to their negative
mass-energy which curves spacetime in the opposite direction from the curvature
due to positive mass-energy.
The negative
energy EM fields and potentials associated
with the dark matter holes and
hole currents are the so-called “dark energy”, again in my view.
The beauty
of this view is that one can
readily evoke such dark matter
currents and dark energy currents in circuits by special use, and suddenly
one has an experimental basis for one’s conclusions.
Bedini has been
evoking such dark matter
currents and dark energy flows in his circuitry for some years, but just
calling it “radiant energy” (as Tesla seems to have also dubbed it). Since
there are real experimental results on the bench, and one who works with
John for awhile can learn to generate
them and replicate them, then
the requisites for a beginning science and technology of “dark energy” and
“dark matter” – from this
viewpoint – has already been laid down by John Bedini. John and I also
filed a PPA on evoking and using such energy and matter
currents in real EM circuits; when we are able to afford it, we will file
a formal patent application.
The
peculiar characteristics of EM negative
energy flow makes the use of dark energy particularly
attractive and useful, since it
readily produces free “energy gain” by the environment’s continual
insistence on inserting (converging) extra excess negative
energy into one’s energy flows,
at any impedance encountered by
the negative energy flow. Hence
when charging a battery with
negative energy, one “connects”
the battery terminals
“backwards” to normal practice – and the impedance of the battery
results in the environment freely furnishing three or four times as much
negative energy to the charging
of the impedance as what the
operator has to input himself.
The result is a clearly COP>1.0 process, which nonetheless obeys the laws
of physics and nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
Further,
with this testable
approach to dark energy and dark matter,
one can indeed account for the odd gravitational
forces that hold the spiral
arms of the spiral galaxies together. But the forces are antigravity
forces back upon the galactic arm matter,
from gatherings and collections
of dark matter currents that
have cumulated outside the
galactic arms. One can also account for the mysterious “drag” forces
produced on the Pioneer spacecraft, which of course are known and
experimentally measured. And lastly but most importantly, one can test
and examine the odd behavior of such dark energy flows and dark matter
currents in real circuits, on the lab bench.
To do a
scientific approach, one normally
attempts to construct a mathematical
model and view that captures
and describes the phenomenology being produced in one’s experimental
results in the laboratory (or
in some cases, observed
at a distance in the universe).
The combination of the two – a
fitted model and the substantiating
experimental results – then produces a legitimate
theory of the
phenomena,
at least sufficient for the
beginning. As additional phenomenology is uncovered, either the original
model must account for it, or else the model must be extended or changed,
as necessary to continue to agree with experiment.
So in my
view, we are in the very early stages of beginning a technology of dark matter
and dark energy, in our EM circuits and systems and in our electrical
power circuits.
Practical
antigravity also follows, since the negative
mass-energy hole repels normal positive mass-energy matter.
So if intense flows of such hole currents (and their associated
dark energy fields and potentials) are evoked in one’s circuit, then one’s
unit can exhibit practical antigravity.
The
Sweet VTA device produced self-oscillation
in the tremendously strong binding energy fields of the nuclei of the
barium
atoms in the barium ferrite
magnets used by Sweet. Since binding energy is also “negative”
energy, then his device produced very powerful self-oscillation
of very powerful negative
energy EM fields and potentials directly inside the barium nucleus – in
there where the protons and neutrons are! (Note here the touching or
possible touching with Mills’ theory. Would not an oscillation
of the negative binding energy
of these nucleons also involve producing some “lowered state”
nucleons,
at least temporarily?).
The oscillations
of negative binding energy also
produced very powerful “unfilled Dirac hole” type currents right in those
barium nuclei and outward. The result, due to the tremendous negative
energy density being produced, did produce practical antigravity in the
Sweet device. I designed the experiment used by Sweet to demonstrate
that effect, and convinced him
(beyond all reason back then, from a “positive energy” view!) to simply
add significantly more impedance to his load, in steps, and then test the
device as each increment was added. As the additional impedance was added
in steps, the weight of the object on the bench decreased. Until, with
the impedance doubled, the unit had lost 90% of its normal weight on a
good scales. Later Sweet did
levitate the device on a tether
string tied to a bedpost, and flew it around by tilting it (with another
string) so a linear propulsion component developed. The actual results of
the first part of the experiments (loss of 90% of the unit’s weight) was
included in the paper I wrote, which is Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden,
"Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings
of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC
'91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375. Unfortunately
Sweet later died and never
fully revealed the activation
secret by which barium ferrite magnetic materials
could be triggered into sustained self-oscillation
at 60 Hertz. Weak self-oscillation
of such permanent magnetic materials
at higher frequency is known in
the conventional literature, of
course, particularly in thin films magnetic research.
I also
tried very hard to get Sweet to call in leading members of the scientific
community and do this experiment themselves, but a very professional
attempt was made on his life,
frightening him immensely. He was absolutely convinced (and I believe now
he was correct) that he would
quickly be killed if he ever touched the antigravity aspects again.
Anyway,
this view, using basically the Dirac sea theory as an initial starting
part, is where I’m coming from with respect to dark energy and dark matter.
So far,
at least this
testable approach is
consistent with the observed dark energy and dark matter
astrophysical effects etc. A good math
model for all this, however, requires the use of higher group symmetry
algebra and higher group symmetry electrodynamics, since the “normal” old
electrical engineering model falsely assumes an inert vacuum and a flat
spacetime (as well as many other falsities, such as arbitrarily exclusion
of all Lorentz asymmetrical systems – and we are in fact discussing
Lorentz asymmetrical systems!. One gets dark energy and dark matter
–
at least in this approach –
only when the vacuum is active and the spacetime is deliberately
curved in a “negative energy
enforced” direction. In short, rigorously we are
attempting to study those
asymmetrical EM systems that
Lorentz in 1892 and all electrical engineering departments have
arbitrarily discarded since then.
Mills’
theory is more advanced in that
he has produced
at least sufficient supporting
math models for the beginning,
and he has an experimental basis
behind his demonstrated
results. Note that lowering the
ground state of the hydrogen
ion (the proton) is indeed a negative
mass-energy change. Assuming that
sufficient lowering (negative
energy change) can be induced, then one would in fact be speaking of a
sort of “Dirac proton hole” once a proton’s worth of positive energy had
radiated away.
One of the
problems facing researchers in this area is that
Dirac himself hated negative
energy, and tried very hard to get rid of it in his electron theory. He
failed, so he placed it in his Dirac sea concept of the vacuum. But then,
once the positive mass-energy electron is popped out of the hole, leaving
the negative mass-energy hole,
he did some arduous straining in reason to conclude that
the hole would then depart (there are the hole currents!) and in turn be
replaced
at the original position by a
filled hole (a piece
of normal Dirac sea vacuum). In short, in Dirac’s view
attempting to observe the hole
would result in filling it with a positive mass-energy electron in that
sense, which is a lessoning of the negative
energy of the hole in the positive energy direction and a reversal of the
hole’s deeply negative charge
to zero charge (i.e., a change in the positive charge direction). In
short, he then stated that
this change would be observed
as a POSITRON, which of course has positive mass-energy and positive
energy EM fields – quite different from the isolated
hole. This observed positron IS NOT the hole that
departed – because that hole
has negative mass-energy and
negative energy EM fields. Rather,
it is the change that occurs in
the vacuum when the hole departs.
It is a real change, but it is NOT the hole itself, nor is an observation
of that change an observation
of the departed hole.
Anyway,
rightly or wrongly Dirac concluded that
“the hole itself” would thus be observed as a positron. That
is false, when one examines the process which is for a positronic change
in the vacuum when the hole departs.
In short, the conclusion should have been that
the DEPARTED HOLE itself could not be directly observed, but that
the change of the vacuum to ELIIMINATE a hole by replacing it with a
filled hole would be
observable as a positron.
So the
present conventional theory seems very muddled in its treatment
of the “Dirac hole”. Due to this, in my view the present researchers have
“lost” dark energy and dark matter,
by that Dirac-inspired
erroneous conclusion that the
hole is somehow a positron. It isn’t.
However,
Mills has in fact rather
extended the Dirac sea ELECTRON theory, to open up the Dirac sea to other
kinds of holes and other kinds of negative
mass-energy “particles”. I believe if he can get it all together well
enough, and iron out any remaining wrinkles, he will have emerged with a
tremendous expansion of the Dirac sea concept and its experimental and
theoretical treatment. My view
is that, if nature
makes holes in the ambient vacuum the size of electrons, then it jolly
well can also make holes that
are some 1800 times bigger.
Out of all
this, somehow, I believe there will eventually emerge a rather
well-fitted experimentally-based model that
finally does allow really practical engineering of the dark matter,
dark energy, and practical antigravity. It will also obviously allow
excess EM energy to be taken rather
freely from the vacuum, thus resolving our present severe energy
difficulties. By use of negative
energy flows along a path
containing iterative series
impedances, in theory one can use a little negative
energy generator powered by a
flashlight battery to generate
enough negative energy to power
all the loads in
New York City! If we used negative
energy and designed our impedance loads to be powered by negative
energy, we also would always experience an additional free negative
energy gain (and real power gain) in the load itself, for each individual
load.
Again,
experimentally based
work such as Mills work should be highly supported, and young doctoral
candidates and post docs in
good universities should also be funded and released to study these
BlackPower processes, models, experiments, etc.
The real
present barrier to a great new
science of energy, antigravity, etc. is the strongly dogmatic
insistence by most of our conventional scientific community that
such a “release” to expand the models and experiments is against the sad
old 1880’s CEM/EE model, and thus should be vigorously prohibited and
suppressed.
In short,
in my view organized science in many ways has now become its own worst
enemy, implementing and enforcing old 1880s EM dogma rather
than expanded EM science using the scientific method.
Best
wishes,
Tom
Sent: Sunday, January 22,
2006 7:05 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject:
Ken Rauen Explains Dr.
Mill's Blacklightpower process
Good Morning Tom,
Thought you'd like to
take a closer look
at this piece of information
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Blacklight_Power
Ken Rauen explains it
beautifully,
His statement:
"When
an
atom
at a high energy state
(also called an excited state)
falls to a lower level, energy is released. This usually occurs as a
photon of light. The observed line spectra emissions of
atoms corresponds to these
transitions." incorporates
your 'observable' [photon]
Ken Rauen is referring
to the lowering of the 'ground state'
of the hydrogen
atom, thus the release of the
[photon] 'observable' energy of the hydrogen
atom.
The Hydrogen 'atom'
"Since
sub-quantum
atoms are non-radiative,
they are an explanation for
"dark matter" that
keeps galaxies together by gravity and not flying apart
at the high rotational
speeds of many galaxies." exhibits the
characteristics [dark matter]
[The ultraviolet line spectra of the sun are
unexplained by classical QM. To explain the UV spectrum of the sun from
hydrogen (the primary constituent of the sun),
Mills proposed fractional
quantum states, 1/2, 1/3,
1/4, 1/5, and
so on. These energy transitions fit the UV spectrum of the sun, hence
the name, Blacklight Power.
Since sub-quantum
atoms are non-radiative,
they are an explanation for
"dark matter"
that keeps galaxies together
by gravity and not flying apart
at the high rotational
speeds of many galaxies.]
of the 'non-observable'
when they are in fractional quantum states,
1/2. 1/3, 1/4, 1/5.
Ken further states:
"The energy
released in these sub-ground state
transitions is larger than any known chemical reaction
and the Mills process was initially thought to be a cold fusion
phenomenon.
The energy level is
not as great as nuclear
reactions; it is intermediate
to nuclear and chemical reaction energies. It
is
in a category by itself."
He concludes: "BLP
has a terrific energy producing process that
liberates heat
in the 1000 degree F range, but it has chosen to first develop the
hydrino technology into a new class of chemical compounds, as the
hydrino is chemically reactive."
Tom, the point I'm
making is that all
'observable' matter is
composed of 'nonobservable' energy 'states'
that exist within the
virtual/nonvirtual quantum state
of the 'creation'
construct. Therefore the 'energy' source derived from the 'vacuum'
originates also in similar
fashion? It is this kind of 'simplification'
that we need to explain, when
discussing the MEG, is it not?
All the Best,
Leslie R. P
PS: What
you have given me thus far is excellent..........and it is this kind of
explanation that
I will be piecing together in February.
The key to
acceptability.......... to the 'uninitiated'
skeptics is to........take their 'language' and arrange it in such
fashion as to demonstrate
'viability,' and thus enable them to 'recognize' and thus gain
'acceptability' [in their eyes] of the process procedure of the MEG
operation. As you can
clearly see........Ken Rauen is amenable to 'recognizing' a procedural
'process'......and that is a
good thing.
|