Did Isaac Newton, NASA and possibly Hillary Clinton deceive the world about...

  • 162 Replies
  • 16682 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
,
A micromicroampere is a picoampere. That's also the number I found:

Near ground you have a voltage of 100V per meter. Quite impressive. But current strength is only in the order of pikoampere per square meter. Almost nothing.

I told you, I do not understand why the current allegedly increases to microampere and miliampere. I have those claims from here:

Quote
The data was recorded and plotted below. At 275 feet, 0.8uA
was  recorded,  which  is  consistent with what others have measured at 300feet (1uA). A 2nd order polynomial curve can be fitted
to the data. When extrapolated beyond 275 feet, the data shows a
linear relationship on a log-log scale (see below). If conditions are
linear,  then  the  current  is  shown  to  escalate  to  1000uA  at  the 
10000 foot level.

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6165.pdf

All I can say is that a number of credible experimenters measured currents of considerable strength.

Quote
In March 1971, Dr. Oleg Jefimenko proved that a wire held aloft by a ballon at 1200 feet altitude would provide 70 watts of high-voltage power to an electrostatic motor (an improved version of the Franklin motor) for as long as the ballon stayed at that altitude. The wire was a high impedance conductor; and the motor ran at 12,000 rpm or about 200 pulses per second.
I don't know any more than what is written.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
,
A micromicroampere is a picoampere. That's also the number I found:

Near ground you have a voltage of 100V per meter. Quite impressive. But current strength is only in the order of pikoampere per square meter. Almost nothing.

I told you, I do not understand why the current allegedly increases to microampere and miliampere. I have those claims from here:

Quote
The data was recorded and plotted below. At 275 feet, 0.8uA
was  recorded,  which  is  consistent with what others have measured at 300feet (1uA). A 2nd order polynomial curve can be fitted
to the data. When extrapolated beyond 275 feet, the data shows a
linear relationship on a log-log scale (see below). If conditions are
linear,  then  the  current  is  shown  to  escalate  to  1000uA  at  the 
10000 foot level.

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6165.pdf

All I can say is that a number of credible experimenters measured currents of considerable strength.

Quote
In March 1971, Dr. Oleg Jefimenko proved that a wire held aloft by a ballon at 1200 feet altitude would provide 70 watts of high-voltage power to an electrostatic motor (an improved version of the Franklin motor) for as long as the ballon stayed at that altitude. The wire was a high impedance conductor; and the motor ran at 12,000 rpm or about 200 pulses per second.
I don't know any more than what is written.

The global atmospheric electrical circuit is obviously not the only source of charge in the atmosphere. One lightning strike alone can have billions of Joule. In humid air there are always charges and apparently those charges can be very high. So it could be that Plauson actually harnessed hygroelectric currents without knowing it. Atmospheric electricity was not so well understood at his time. 

To answer the OP we do know that Newton, in particular, was very weak of brain from the time he was a young man, forward.

<snip>
Newton was nothing of the sort.  Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica changed the face mathematics, physics, and science forever. 

Your's is an ignorant statement.  Either that or an out right trolling lie.  Not to mention completely unsupportable.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15346
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Well the whole idea just looks like wind turbines, but worse. Still interesting but I'm not sure how practical it is.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Well the whole idea just looks like wind turbines, but worse. Still interesting but I'm not sure how practical it is.

I looked a lot into it the last few days and it is extremely interesting. The bulk of electricity in the air is due to humidity. Water molecules have a strong tendency to ionize and I think it is the dipole nature of water molecules that makes that possible. That is also the cause why water has such a high latent heat.

Water has a latent heat of 2.26 MJ/kg. At 100% humidity and 20°C there are 17.3g/m^3 water vapor in the air. That would be almost 40,000 Joule for every m^3 of air. That would make humid air a major potential energy source.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15346
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Well the whole idea just looks like wind turbines, but worse. Still interesting but I'm not sure how practical it is.

I looked a lot into it the last few days and it is extremely interesting. The bulk of electricity in the air is due to humidity. Water molecules have a strong tendency to ionize and I think it is the dipole nature of water molecules that makes that possible. That is also the cause why water has such a high latent heat.

Water has a latent heat of 2.26 MJ/kg. At 100% humidity and 20°C there are 17.3g/m^3 water vapor in the air. That would be almost 40,000 Joule for every m^3 of air. That would make humid air a major potential energy source.
Sure, theoretically, but what I'm not so sure is that there is a practical way to extract it and make an improvement over other sources. Idk, it would be cool to see more research on that.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Well the whole idea just looks like wind turbines, but worse. Still interesting but I'm not sure how practical it is.

I looked a lot into it the last few days and it is extremely interesting. The bulk of electricity in the air is due to humidity. Water molecules have a strong tendency to ionize and I think it is the dipole nature of water molecules that makes that possible. That is also the cause why water has such a high latent heat.

Water has a latent heat of 2.26 MJ/kg. At 100% humidity and 20°C there are 17.3g/m^3 water vapor in the air. That would be almost 40,000 Joule for every m^3 of air. That would make humid air a major potential energy source.
Sure, theoretically, but what I'm not so sure is that there is a practical way to extract it and make an improvement over other sources. Idk, it would be cool to see more research on that.

By this time I think I know most research that is done on it. Modern concepts are quite different than Plauson's straightforward aluminium balloons, which I still could not find out if they are feasible or not. Obviously they continue to be suppressed by NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia and the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collectors.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Obviously they continue to be suppressed by NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia and the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collectors.
You seem to find a lot of things "obvious" when there is not a trace evidence that
";D ;) NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia or the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collector ;) :D"
ever suppressed such research, let alone continue to do so.
You sound like a typical ::) flat-earther ::)!

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Obviously they continue to be suppressed by NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia and the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collectors.
You seem to find a lot of things "obvious" when there is not a trace evidence that
";D ;) NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia or the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collector ;) :D"
ever suppressed such research, let alone continue to do so.
You sound like a typical ::) flat-earther ::)!

For a long time now I suspected you to be the chairman of the  International Association of Bulb Fitting Collectors. Finally you have exposed yourself.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Obviously they continue to be suppressed by NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia and the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collectors.
You seem to find a lot of things "obvious" when there is not a trace evidence that
";D ;) NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia or the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collector ;) :D"
ever suppressed such research, let alone continue to do so.
You sound like a typical ::) flat-earther ::)!

For a long time now I suspected you to be the chairman of the  International Association of Bulb Fitting Collectors. Finally you have exposed yourself.
I can find the  International Association of Collectors and Students of Historic Lighting but you've lost me on the "International Association of Bulb Fitting Collectors".

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Obviously they continue to be suppressed by NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia and the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collectors.
You seem to find a lot of things "obvious" when there is not a trace evidence that
";D ;) NASA, Hillary Clinton, the Chinese solar mafia or the International Asociation of Bulb Fitting Collector ;) :D"
ever suppressed such research, let alone continue to do so.
You sound like a typical ::) flat-earther ::)!

For a long time now I suspected you to be the chairman of the  International Association of Bulb Fitting Collectors. Finally you have exposed yourself.
I can find the International Association of Collectors and Students of Historic Lighting but you've lost me on the "International Association of Bulb Fitting Collectors".

An easier way to bring load from orbit to earth's surface than a giant kinetic energy recycler is a rotating skyhook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)

You can deliberately lower the relative speed between load and earth by your choice of the rotating speed of the skyhook. So you do not have to deal with velocities in the order of 10 km/s, but could bring it down to, let's say 1 km/s. When you combine it with a kinetic energy recycler it is still possible to harness energy from the process. 100 times less than when you capture the load directly from low earth orbit, but the structure would have to handle lesser amounts of energy and would be easier to build.

The International Association of Bulb Fitting Collectors is the most secret society that has ever existed. Maybe you could find it in the dark web.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 06:39:41 AM by FalseProphet »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
An easier way to bring load from orbit to earth's surface than a giant kinetic energy recycler is a rotating skyhook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
Easier conceptually or easier to implement?

Quote from: FalseProphet
You can deliberately lower the relative speed between load and earth by your choice of the rotating speed of the skyhook. So you do not have to deal with velocities in the order of 10 km/s, but could bring it down to, let's say 1 km/s. When you combine it with a kinetic energy recycler it is still possible to harness energy from the process. 100 times less than when you capture the load directly from low earth orbit, but the structure would have to handle lesser amounts of energy and would be easier to build.
The big barrier in bringing anything down to earth is getting it through the atmosphere with the critical range being from 50 to 80 km.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
An easier way to bring load from orbit to earth's surface than a giant kinetic energy recycler is a rotating skyhook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
Easier conceptually or easier to implement?

Quote from: FalseProphet
You can deliberately lower the relative speed between load and earth by your choice of the rotating speed of the skyhook. So you do not have to deal with velocities in the order of 10 km/s, but could bring it down to, let's say 1 km/s. When you combine it with a kinetic energy recycler it is still possible to harness energy from the process. 100 times less than when you capture the load directly from low earth orbit, but the structure would have to handle lesser amounts of energy and would be easier to build.
The big barrier in bringing anything down to earth is getting it through the atmosphere with the critical range being from 50 to 80 km.

You capture it at 80 km height or higher, where there is not much atmosphere. You can for example make a platform sustained by active support, like the so called "space fountain" or the Lofstrom loop. It would even be a very small space fountain compared with the original concept. I have found quite a number of ideas how to make insanely high buildings.