Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The 'P' word

Expand Messages
  • Chris Hughes
    Adriaan, I thought I would have to make a comment on a sentance from your last message, specifically... As some electrons from the negative medium ( the shell
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 30, 2001
      Adriaan,
      I thought I would have to make a comment on a sentance from
      your last message, specifically..."As some electrons from the negative
      medium ( the shell ) recombine with the protons from the positive medium (
      plasma ) a photon of light is released which color resembles the ressonant
      frequency of the the plasma.".


      Fistly, I would like to say that a lot of people keep talking
      about the 'plasma' that envelops the ship .etc but I have serious
      reservations at to whether the word plasma is really the word we should be
      using. I have said this all along but many of you are still convinced that
      it really IS a plasma. I have to say that I really DO dissagree.

      If anything, the ship would be surrounded by masses of
      positively charged gasses, or positive ions - which is a far cry from a
      full-blown plasma. The positive ion is just a nuetral atom with one or more
      of its outer electrons missing. If the electrons are going to do any
      re-combining at all, it would be into the outer shell of a positive ion. The
      frequency of light that is emited as a result of this recombination, is
      directly linked to the energy that was lost by the electron, to enable it to
      settle into this fixed-energy orbit.

      I know it is great to talk about exotics topic such as plasma
      physics but you don't need a plasma for the UFO style light-show or to
      create an AG field. As far as I understand the AG field is generated when
      you have a potential difference of charges, where the induced force is in
      the direction of the positive charge.

      Sorry to get on my high-horse a little but please stop and
      think before you use the 'P' word, as I really don't think its an accurate
      one to use.


      Regards,
      Chris Hughes.
    • Ole Jensen
      Chris, The P word, like most other Hamel words has a different meaning in relation to the ship and it s technology. Words like pinion, nano, duality, point,
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 30, 2001
        Chris,

        The P word, like most other "Hamel" words has a different
        meaning in relation to the ship and it's technology.
        Words like pinion, nano, duality, point, black hole, and so
        on are not necessarily the same as the webster's definition.
        We often run into the problem where we hear a word and assume
        (reasonably I admit) that it means what it means in the
        dictionary. Unfortunately Mr Hamel doesn't follow conventional
        definitions or phraseology, so we have this difficulty.
        It is the P word that Mr Hamel uses to describe the collection
        of stuff that sort of clings to the outside of the ship
        and is created by the engine in the ship and causes it to
        have or not have gravity and causes it to move.
        Adriaan was using it in the "Hamel" mode which as you
        quite adequately described it is different from the classic
        PLASMA. Whether it is "plasma" or plasma is not the point.
        Perhaps the point Adriaan was making was to do with the way
        that this sheath of stuff operates. It makes some sense
        and helps me (far from a rocket scientist) understand how
        it works (might work / could work) and that is a good thing
        from my perspective. This Hamel plasma may be a different
        kind of conventional plasma that we (ther rest) have been
        unable to fabricate up to this point in time.

        Perhaps we should put in quotes words used in the Hamel
        mode, or since it is often the other way around, we should
        put the conventional definition in quotes for the multiply
        defined terms. it is a problem that will crop up repeatedly.

        I hope the book comes out soon and we can refer to the glossary
        there, in an effort to clear up the repeated confusion.

        Ole.
        --- In hameltech@y..., "Chris Hughes" <chrishughes@t...> wrote:
        > Adriaan,
        > I thought I would have to make a comment on a
        sentance from
        > your last message, specifically..."As some electrons from the
        negative
        > medium ( the shell ) recombine with the protons from the positive
        medium (
        > plasma ) a photon of light is released which color resembles the
        ressonant
        > frequency of the the plasma.".
        >
        >
        > Fistly, I would like to say that a lot of people keep
        talking
        > about the 'plasma' that envelops the ship .etc but I have serious
        > reservations at to whether the word plasma is really the word we
        should be
        > using. I have said this all along but many of you are still
        convinced that
        > it really IS a plasma. I have to say that I really DO dissagree.
        >
        > If anything, the ship would be surrounded by masses of
        > positively charged gasses, or positive ions - which is a far cry
        from a
        > full-blown plasma. The positive ion is just a nuetral atom with one
        or more
        > of its outer electrons missing. If the electrons are going to do
        any
        > re-combining at all, it would be into the outer shell of a positive
        ion. The
        > frequency of light that is emited as a result of this
        recombination, is
        > directly linked to the energy that was lost by the electron, to
        enable it to
        > settle into this fixed-energy orbit.
        >
        > I know it is great to talk about exotics topic such as
        plasma
        > physics but you don't need a plasma for the UFO style light-show or
        to
        > create an AG field. As far as I understand the AG field is
        generated when
        > you have a potential difference of charges, where the induced force
        is in
        > the direction of the positive charge.
        >
        > Sorry to get on my high-horse a little but please stop
        and
        > think before you use the 'P' word, as I really don't think its an
        accurate
        > one to use.
        >
        >
        > Regards,
        > Chris Hughes.
      • Adriaan Erasmus
        Chris Thanks for that bit of info there ;-) Can you explain the difference between a plasma and a group of positive ions, to all of us then ? I would have to
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 1, 2001
          Chris

          Thanks for that bit of info there ;-) Can you explain the difference
          between a plasma and a group of positive ions, to all of us then ?

          I would have to apologize to everybody that read my previous posts as
          I am obviously unaware of what a plasma really is !

          If I am right, you are going to say something like - ' a plasma is
          what remains when all of the electrons are removed from the atom. The
          more electrons that get removed the closer this substance gets to
          being a true plasma.'

          Am I right with the above ?

          Sorry everyone for confusing you all with my continuous ranting about
          PLASMA ( what I should have said was POSITIVE IONS ).

          Good luck to you all
          Adriaan.
        • Chris Hughes
          Hi Adraain, You are absolutely right. A plasma IS where a group of atoms have been exited enough to liberate all of their electrons. The whole mass exists
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 1, 2001
            Hi Adraain,
            You are absolutely right. A plasma IS where a group of
            atoms have been exited enough to liberate all of their electrons. The whole
            mass exists (nucleus & electrons) in a kind of high energy soup. The
            energy/temperature has to be so high that the electrons cannot loose enough
            energy to settle into an orbit around a nucleus (protons & neutrons).
            A plasma is normally contained by strong, constantly
            controlled, electromagnetic fields which hold the plasma in suspension , so
            to speak. I have read that the task of keeping the plasma contained is like
            trying to push jelly (jello) into a sphere using rubber bands! Once the
            plasma is successfully contained, however, the temperature is kept up by the
            application of microwaves into its core.

            [There is a project called JET (the 'Joint European
            Toroid'), which is basically a contained donut shaped plasma, which once
            brought up to high enough temperatures and pressures (approaching that of
            the centre of our Sun), it is expected that nuclear fusion will take place.
            When I read an article on it a few years ago, they had reached the necessary
            temperatures and also the pressures but never both at once. The bigger the
            device, the more efficient it becomes and the easier it is to sustain both
            conditions - if the device is built over a certain size, then the efficiency
            goes well over 100%, apparently but with a predicted price tag (about five
            years ago) in excess of $6Billon (US) each. Needless to say, the funding has
            not been forthcoming, although they predicted that six of the devices could
            power most of the energy requirements of the northern hemisphere - yes
            really!!
            This is yet another chance for us to achieve the goal of
            clean, (virtually) free energy. I say virtually, because the main
            constituent of the reaction that needs renewing is Lithium Hydride but this
            can easily be filtered from ordinary sea water - and we have enough to last
            us millions of years !! Also another great thing about this plasma toroid is
            that if, for some reason, the control mechanisms that contain it fail, then
            the reaction just stops - no melt down, no radiation, it just stops.
            Several $billion sounds a lot I suppose but remind me
            someone, how much does the 'developed world' spend on defence each year ???]


            Anyway Ariaan, I hope this was of some interest and keep
            the posts coming!

            Regards,
            Chris Hughes.





            >Chris

            >Thanks for that bit of info there ;-) Can you explain the difference
            >between a plasma and a group of positive ions, to all of us then ?

            >If I am right, you are going to say something like - ' a plasma is
            >what remains when all of the electrons are removed from the atom. The
            >more electrons that get removed the closer this substance gets to
            >being a true plasma.'

            >Am I right with the above ?

            >Sorry everyone for confusing you all with my continuous ranting about
            >PLASMA ( what I should have said was POSITIVE IONS ).

            >Good luck to you all
            >Adriaan.
          • Adriaan Erasmus
            Chris Thanks for the rundown of plasma. Correct me if I am wrong. If we can continually send a vortex of positive ions through the same process that rips its
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 2, 2001
              Chris

              Thanks for the rundown of plasma.
              Correct me if I am wrong. If we can continually send a vortex of
              positive ions through the same process that rips its electrons off we
              would eventually end up with a true plasma. - speculating ;-)

              OR

              If we could cause a tornado of positive ions to reach a state of
              ressonance at an extremely high frequency - we could theoretically
              increase the energy in the tornado and cause more electrons to escape
              the atoms until we have a true plasma. The high energy buildup will
              then prevent electrons from recombining.

              If we then could form a liquid plasma that rotates around a hollow
              conductor - this positive plasma is controlled by a negative medium
              which is inside the hollow conductor ( attraction ).

              Eventually the craft + the plasma around it forms a nucleus and all
              the free electrons around the NEW nucleus will fit into NEW orbits
              and that is the creation of an ATOM as written above most of Mr.
              Hamels drawings of the craft.

              What do you think of the above ? Is it possible ? Do you think thats
              how it could work ?

              What do you think is the bright corona around the prototype that took
              off ?

              According to Bob Lazar - the physicist that worked at Area 51 there
              are two types of gravity. Gravity A and Gravity B. Gravity A is at
              Atomic level and Gravity B is the BIG Gravity we experience on earth.
              Gravity B is the weak one because we can temporarily break it by
              merely jumping in the air. Gravity A is very very strong and can be
              accessed when atoms split under controlled conditions. Some elements
              like element 115 ( not found on earth ) has a gravity A wave that
              extends past the perimeter of the atoms that make up this element.

              By creating something that resembles a huge atom with millions and
              millions of electrons orbiting a HUGE nucleus consisting of millions
              and millions of protons and neutrons - we can have an even stronger
              gravity A wave that could provide all the gravity and propulsion
              needed in such a craft.

              Let me know what you think !

              Adriaan
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.