Experimental note regarding the H Plasma Reactor: On April 27, 2000 I decided to test the preliminary design for this prototype which consisted of the D2-137 output signal amplitude-modulated on a carrier of 480MHz. For this purpose I used an old HP608E signal generator wherein I could combine the signals. About two minutes later, as I was adjusting the frequency in the core of the 608, a flash followed by emission of thick odorless smoke poured from the 608. Once everything was powered down, I disassembled the core from the 608 and noted the UHF pencil triode oscillator which drives the output signal (including %modulation) was completely vaporized.
Trying to discern what had gone wrong and upon closer inspection, I discovered the ion stream contained between the D2s nonlinear oscillations and the mostly linear pencil triode separated into electron/positron pairs prematurely and became weak-beam plasma (equation appearing as soon as I find time) more quickly and at a lower power quotient than the equations originally projected. I am still in the process of sorting out how this type of reaction could be produced considering feedback along the signal path should be only possible when the polarity of vacuum tubes start oscillate--yet I have no evidence that this had occurred. This just might be the explaination I'm looking for, however because of my ignorance of the behavior of this phenomena, the reactor is offline again and will be until I figure out how this works before I kill myself . . .and who said science is neither fun nor humbling?
One more thing. . .never use a matter core to contain a plasma!
16 May 2000: After the "accident" of 27 April, I was forced to reexamine the project; this has been neither easy nor concise in any manner and I find that I have been grasping at proverbial straws. But one fact has remained, the compexity of the power conversion within the plasma core is far greater than I had ever tried to imagine. Perhaps so great that mapping its behavior is a Herculian task and would be better left that the system itself would monitor the inherent behaviors. As either nonsensical or pedantic as it may sound, the system knows more about the system than I do and when looked at in terms of dynamic Legrange or Hamiltonian quotients it makes perfect sense. So I have resigned myself to investigate this which I at this point in time have trouble defining--but I will have the voice to in the near future.
I'm talking about a self-regulating power circuit; an experimental version of a hypothetical matrix equation--a 3x3 time-base relaxation oscillator which is simultaneously a vco. I have ordered and received the necessary parts and will prototype this soon, hopefully this weekend. It is but a matter of time to see whether or not I am correct; I must find out but as soon as I begin to understand this phenomena, another paradox surfaces and sends me careening into another abyss.
The notion of nonlinearity, especially in physics, is diametrically opposed to compartmentalized ideals of how one believes nature works; science and the forces behind technological development spend most of their time linearizing the electromagnetic spectrum--that is imposing a forced order upon a naturally chaotic system. This process has served us well these past 150 or so years, we as students have learned a linear set of Newtonian laws which describe the world based on a set of ideal systems with their applicable constants. Gravity, for instance, is a force whose behavior is expressed as a constant; this is for the most part true for the system in which gravity functions is extremely large and minor fluctuations are not easily noticed. From overall observation we determine those set of laws which describe what we see, we have successfully imposed an order from a naturally chaotic system. Many physics students will not question this premise, they seem happy with this linear or imposed order where 90% of the nonlinear or chaotic elements are removed--the most intriguing behaviors of the system have been ignored. Imposing an order upon nature is a habit borne from the rise of civilization and is a consequence of how our technology has evolved. But this is not the whole story and some branches of physics have popped up which gears itself to recognize the need for a deeper look into chaos, into the electromagnetic spectrum where we are discovering phenomena we once filtered and wrestled out from our stable sine waves, into a realm where nothing is as it appears to be.
With a linear experiment, one can say what is and is not truth; deterministic by the nature of its design, a certain level of confidence is assured as to the outcome of such experiments. A nonlinear experiment doesn't offer the same solace. In fact, one can find themselves wrestling with an outcome for years discovering little footing or support for their hypotheses which inspires stagnation and little, if any, desire to continue. Chaos is a fickle thing and will not reveal its mechanics easily and when it does those mechanics have no relativistic context for their behaviors, a discovery which proves to be more detrimental than beneficial. The only context gleaned is a relativistic paradigm that only applies within the chaotic system itself--much like a forced Duffing oscillator--and it is only from perseverance that a scientist can understand it.
There is a contingent premise that is tertiary in nonlinear physics--sensitive dependence upon initial conditions. Although it appears to be an absurdly simple statement, it speaks volumes if properly asserted. It means that if one is performing a nonlinear experiment, what one determines as the set of constraints for the experiment are crucial to not only the observed phenomena generated, but those constraints must be followed to the letter if the experiment is to be repeatable. This notion is complex in the extreme and only an example will serve to illustrate my point.
In 1995, I began my research into nonlinear physics. The idea of nonlinearity is multi-faceted and one can easily get lost in where to begin; I was no different. After two years of research, I decided to start with oscillatory systems; they seemed to be the most fruitful as they are closed systems (save modulation considerations) and much work had been done since the late 19th century. With precedent in place and armed with numerous texts, I developed my first electronic nonlinear oscillator, the Model C1--named after Tesla's first electrodynamic coil. I decided to align myself with Tesla's work because of the fact he was one of the first scientists to not only observe what later became know as nonlinearity, but who also explored it in the field of electromagnetics. Another physicist was Robert A. Millikan, who determined the charge carried by an electron and explored the spectrum between X-rays and ultraviolet light-extending it beyond its then known limits. Between these two scientists, I was able to establish a set of hypotheses which I could repeat whereby establishing what I could say was true for the set of conditions set by them.
Although the premise seemed sound, I soon discovered that I could not wholly rely on their observations as conditions within the environment play strongly to these systems.
On 18 May 1997, the comet Hale-Bop passed overhead and I had been running the C1 for three days straight. On little patience and little sleep, I wasn't sure what to expect from the experiments; for the first 12 hours, a dense electostatic field formed around the apparatus. I added a wound coil between the C1 and the Beacon and that seemed to help boost the field; but over the next 24 hours, I could not determine what it was that I was looking at. Ready to give up, scrap the whole operation, and forget Bohm's work, Dana encouraged me to continue to not give up. Nonlinear physics at that point in its development and understanding required more faith than fact, but as time progresses the imbalance is shifting to the opposite.
The Model C1 lay dormant after the May 1997 experiments; perhaps from a perceived success or imagined failure, I felt that either I had discovered something new and troublesome or else nothing at all. This dichotomy hung with me until January 1999 when I began construction of the C2-137 nonlinear oscillator. A far better machine, I now had a clock by which to manipulate charge densities (as far as I knew) but was still trying to figure it out.
A link to my formal paper The Infinity Complex.
A list of prototypes I have constructed and tested. More detailed information (and pictures) will appear as subsequent links to the list.
Model C1 Capacitive-driven Nonlinear Oscillator (May 1997)
Model C2-137 Electrodynamically-driven Nonlinear Oscillator (March 1999)
Model D2-137 Phase Modulator (August 1999)
Model E2-6870 Transmittal parabolic dish (August 1999)
Model F Photonic Oscillator (Design September 1999)
Model G High Energy containment vessel (Design January 2000)
Model H Plasma Reactor (Design April 2000)
To the patron saint of nonlinear science and the man of kept fear:
Nikola
Tesla
"Man is neither ready nor able to understand that which I propose; however, the tools I leave him will at once benefit his existence. . .the day will come, though, when they will ultimately destroy him."
Robert A. Millikan
Some Tesla links which provide more background information on the man:
Einstein
An extensive physics formulary by JCA Wevers
PhysicsWeb
Topics in Mathematics.
