Dr. Evans Blog

Subject: Fwd: note for paper 94
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:26:27 EDT

Eq. (28) looks very good, and perhaps can be graphed. In general I think that this is the right method, to look at the equations systematically for each device. The governing equations are the same but each device is different. I will make a start on writing up paper 94 tomorrow and also include the two technical appendices which reduce the equations to vector form and work out the meaning of the index a. Thne for a given device and given configuration the circuitry can be optimized to give maximum resonance.

In this note I tried to give some systematic method how to describe SCR of electromagnetic devices. Maybe this is beyond the scope of paper 94. It would be sufficient to take over the “modelling” section. Unfortunately it seems to be difficult to find a simplified model of the Bedini device where all variables can be determined from the model equations. Perhaps I will tomorrow write out for comparison the other method I did not describe in the note. The equations probably have to be solved numerically. I proved the manipulation of the equations by Maxima.

Horst

Attachment: Bedini-note7.pdf

Subject: Fwd: paper 95
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:01:44 EDT

Only today I got around to reading the paper. This is a real progress in cosmology compared to the last 50 years, probably worth more than 100 papers of standard cosmologists. In eqs. (39-42) you have used the “development angle” phi(t) whatever this means for the standard model. phi seems to be defined by transcendent equations so an analytical form phi(t) obviously cannot be given. Another mystic feature FLRW models.

It may be interesting to plot the time evolution of the currents, but then we need an explicit model for a(t). Is phi=const a meaningful choice? Or what do you propose?

Horst

Thanks, also to Steve Crothers and Tom Widlar who introduced us to Maxima. It is clearly the AIAS group that is driving physics forward now, and we also have our own publication methods and library. I would like to ask Steve about phi, what would he propose? Paper 95 is the first of a series of papers, and I propose paper 96 to be a three author one with Steve and yourself on the use of his metrics and one or two others that pass all the tests, i.s. do not show any singularities and are well behaved electrodynamically. Paper 93 has been a landmark paper in all respects, so the idea is to develop the impact made by paper 93. After years of ill treatment this also brings some justice to the scholar Stephen Crothers.

Subject: Fwd: AW: Further note for paper 94
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:45:55 EDT

Yesterday I succeeded in setting up a model fort the Bedini motor. I will write it down in detail today and tomorrow. The basis is the equation

curl E + dB/dt = 0

with a predefined driving force B. I tried an alternative method before which did not lead to a meaningful result, will also describe it.

In an earlier email you advised to use eq. (5) of note 94(4) as the resonance equation. To my opinion this equation, based on

curl B = 1/c^2 * dE/dt + mu0 * J ,

describes another class of devices for predefined B: due to the non-vanishing curl B term they require a toroidal coil. The MEG of Bearden falls into this class. We can decide if we add this to the current paper or make it a separate paper.

Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. September 2007 08:53 An: garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk; rhodri.morgan] at [wales.gov.uk; annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com; BBCMidWales] at [bbc.co.uk; ioan.richards] at [swansea.gov.uk; phil.o'connor] at [swansea.gov.uk; ewehoe] at [yahoo.co.uk; john.hague] at [swansea.gov.uk; fdamador] at [comcast.net; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com Betreff: Fwd: Further note for paper 94

Many thanks, I would advise trying some models for the right hand side of eq. 5) of note 94(4) using the rest of teh note to reduce it to an undamped oscillator where A can go to infinity without a battery. In the meantime I will dig out the error made by the cosmologists in the units of the RW metric for paper 95, and finish off that paper. Paper 93 has been an outstanding success, so congratulations to Steve and yourself as co authors. I think we should build on the most successful papers by feedback, especially paper 93.

Many thanks! This looks ver interesting and seveal classes of equations can be tried out systematically. I intend to write one or two more notes to show as clearly as I can that friend Bruhn is up the wrong tree, then return to paper 94. As ECE gets mroe and mroe systematic the more and more boomerangs he throws.

Subject: Notes 1
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:23:07 EDT

Attachment: anotes1.pdf

This is the correct Lorentz transformation and is the first in a series of clarification notes

Subject: Fwd: [AIAS] Fwd: Peace in Europe Yes a balance is needed. from Neutrino
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:42:42 EDT

A RESPONSE TO A FELLOWPHYSICISTSadly, I am compelled to agree with you Myron. Balance is needed. To offset the 10:1 superiority of the NATO alliance (29 nations) a clear threat to Russia, Russia has entered into a mutual defense treaty with China. In the event either is attacked, China has committed to provide 200 million troops while Russia with a population 1/2 that of America will provide the necessary weapons which are on par with the US. Since NATO did not live up to the Arms reduction agreement, just recently Russia announced as of December this year they won’t either. Since Bush, during our Independence Day holidays, refused Putin’s offer to place a joint shield in Russia against Iranian and N Korean missiles, Russia and China, for the first time are practicing joint maneuvers. Not only is Russia arming China to the “teeth” but since Russia alone can’t match the land forces of Europe (including former Soviet Republics members of NATO) the land forces of all of the nations boarding Russia I predict will soon be standing nose to nose and toes to toes with Russian and mostly Chinese soldiers. In response to the placement of missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia tested both land and sea based missiles that can penetrate our radar and anti missile shields. This means all of the coastal areas of US (NYC, Washington etc.) and Britain will be within minutes of nuclear destruction from Russian (and most probably Chinese) submarine based missiles. While costly the build up of the Russian/Chinese alliance will bring perfect military balance, and as you point out, while unpleasant, such a balance did deter a third world war for 60 years. As a member of the physics community, that invents these weapons of mass destruction, I have carried out my duty of accepting responsibility, but am forced to admit I have failed to bring our people (Congressmen) in power to their senses. So it is that a balance will be achieved but at enormous financial cost to the populace driving us into a state of poverty. If so let it be. Better to live in poverty than not at all. Just as in your experience with the British establishment, it is a shame it can’t be otherwise, but when one side feels it is the one and only super power and becomes drunk with power, tears up treaties as we did in the US, that is the kind of situation that will lead to the last and final war: Armageddon. Even President Carter’s pleas were ridiculed. Should it come, it will be the shortest war on record lasting at the most a few hours. For some it will be a merciful instant death and for the most of us including Auburnians, the unprotected, probably a merciless suffering not unlike that of living victims Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyway, I enjoy reading your physics oriented emails even though an experimentalist. Peter.

************************************** See what’s new at http://www.aol.com

Looks like MAD as usual - mutual assured destruction. Nice to hear from you and it was ceratinly none of yoru fault. Obviously a lot of diplomacy must be used here to defuse this situation.

Myron

Subject: Fwd: AW: Lorentz Transform
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:38:49 EDT

Thank you very much! I iwll add this to my notes - I am preparing more details now.

One point which I remember Bruhn confused was that in a coordinate transformation you can transform either the coordinate components of vectors or the basis vectors but not both. the basis transformation is inverse to the component transformation. Bruhn did not realize this. I think this applies also to the Lorentz transformation. You could mention this in your notes.

Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 29. September 2007 12:35 An: garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk; rhodri.morgan] at [wales.gov.uk; annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com; BBCMidWales] at [bbc.co.uk; ioan.richards] at [swansea.gov.uk; phil.o'connor] at [swansea.gov.uk; ewehoe] at [yahoo.co.uk; john.hague] at [swansea.gov.uk; fdamador] at [comcast.net; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com Betreff: Lorentz Transform

I have worked out the invariance of the B Cyclic Theorem again using Jackson’s own notation. I have Jackson’s third edition here, and he applies a one axis Lorentz boost to vector components:

x sup mu = (ct, X, Y, Z)

This is not the frame of reference, which is given by the unit vector:

e sup mu = (1, 1, 1, 1)

as this mocking bird Bruhn well knows. Under a Z Lorentz boost 1 goes to 1, but ct goes to ct’ and Z to Z’. This guy has been forced to admit however that the B Cyclic Theorem is the frame itself. He is now on the ropes and obfuscating like crazy. I will send clarifying notes and will correct this guy until hell freezes solid. The state of corruption of science is illustrated very clearly by this note. It is the editors who know nothing about the Lorentz transform. So we scientists should tell them to get off our e mail lists.

Subject: Peace in Europe
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:43:58 EDT

The way to keep peace in Europe is through deterence. That is the only way out now that the deterent has been created by our previous generations. We have to live with it. Our previous generations almost obliterated us several times in the sixties to nineties. If there is a Vortigern weakness, stability will not last two minutes. Our generation has however kept the peace for sixty years. I think that this is the best for central Europe too, because none of us would like it to fall under a dictatorship again, least of all the central Europeans themselves. Realpolitik is primitive, but that is how the world is. I would not like to see the mindless totalitarian nature of physics administration spread into society, so legislatures must get a grip on this scenario.

Subject: Lorentz Transform
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:34:47 EDT

I have worked out the invariance of the B Cyclic Theorem again using Jackson’s own notation. I have Jackson’s third edition here, and he applies a one axis Lorentz boost to vector components:

x sup mu = (ct, X, Y, Z)

This is not the frame of reference, which is given by the unit vector:

e sup mu = (1, 1, 1, 1)

as this mocking bird Bruhn well knows. Under a Z Lorentz boost 1 goes to 1, but ct goes to ct’ and Z to Z’. This guy has been forced to admit however that the B Cyclic Theorem is the frame itself. He is now on the ropes and obfuscating like crazy. I will send clarifying notes and will correct this guy until hell freezes solid. The state of corruption of science is illustrated very clearly by this note. It is the editors who know nothing about the Lorentz transform. So we scientists should tell them to get off our e mail lists.

Subject: Fwd: AW: WG: Book on Exact Solutions to EH
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:24:01 EDT

Thansk for this offer! Much appreciated. I will wait to see what you think about it and if you see any intertesting metrics the charge density and current density can be worked out on Maxima. If you think it is a good book it is easier for me just to order it from Maxima. I am very intersted in working out the laws of electrodynamics from these metrics.

Today I ordered the book from a bookstore. It is not available on amazon in Europe. However it can be ordered from Amazon in US for a special reduced price of $ 60 (used book, but that should not matter). Here it costs about 140 Euro. Myron: if you are interested I can send over the book to you for a while. Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 8. September 2007 11:01 An: garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk; rhodri.morgan] at [wales.gov.uk; annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com; BBCMidWales] at [bbc.co.uk; ioan.richards] at [swansea.gov.uk; phil.o'connor] at [swansea.gov.uk; ewehoe] at [yahoo.co.uk; john.hague] at [swansea.gov.uk; fdamador] at [comcast.net; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com Betreff: Book on Exact Solutions to EH

I found this book on

www.physicsforums.com/archive/index/php/t-141757.html

There are in fact thousands of exact solutions to EH. The book is:

H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Noensaelaus and E. Hertl, “Exact Solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations” (Cambridge University Press, 2003, 2nd .ed.) ISBN 0-521-46136-7.

This posting gives two new metrics, the Friedmann dust solution and a perfect fluid sphere which I will send out next. The exact solutions to EH will ALL give Coulomb and Ampere Maxwell Laws, so a whole book can be built up on this topic, giving thousands of new electrodynamical solutions. This could be published by Abramis as a tabular reference book. I think that the whole book could be produced automatically by Maxima, for example by Horst Eckardt, Tom Widlar, and myself, with commentary by Stephen Crothers. The main classes of exact EH solutions are:

1) Lambda vacua; 2) Dusts; 3) Goedel dust; 4) Perfect fluids; 5) Null dusts; 6) Scalar field solutions; 7) Non-null electrovacua; Null electrovacua.

Some of these are more important for ECE than others, and many should be subjected to scrutiny by MAxiam to see if they are true EH solutions adn obey the Ricci cylcc equation, and in view of Crothers’ advances and caveats, but this book is well worth consulting by lending library or library. Some solutions conflict with the basic philosophy of ECE, but there are no doubt many that are valid for ECE.

Subject: Defence Policy of the US, France and Britain
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:59:34 EDT

In my view the nuclear deterrent of the US, France and Britain must be strengthened and kept firmly in the hands of the three countries. Central Europe must be demilitarized permanently because of past record and current political weakness. This is the best way to maintain a stable Europe in the realpolitik. Immigration controls into Britain should be reinforced - the trade based ECE does not mean a free for all. Although Bruhn is an extreme case, he not doubt echoes hostility to Britain, because of repeated attacks on Parliament and its authority. The danger of course is that the democracies of central Europe will be overthrown. This has been such a nuisance in the past. The US, Britain and France must try hard to maintain cordial relations with Russia and the four countries must maintain an overhwelming military deterrent. Scientific establishment is often weak and corrupt, and have in the past allowed themselves to be used with near fatal consequencies for humanity. This is as warned by Einstein himself. Judging on my own experiences, honesty within the scientific establishment is nigh non existent and that is a danger sign if it is any indicator of the state of society in central Europe. The natural allies of Britain are the US, Russia and France.

Civil List Scientist