Entries from March 2009 ↓

Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called “cold fusion” that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/acs-fr031709.php

Michael Gamble from Boeing has kindly sent along his pitch notes for his gravity research presentation.

gravity4b

You can follow what Mike said during his presentation for perhaps a more concise view.

 

                   SPESIF PITCH NOTES 2/26/09

 

Chart 1)  INTRODUCTION to the “STUDY OF GRAVITY”

Chart 1A)  Boeing memo allowing the “Public Domain” release of this “Study of Gravity”.

    [Not needed in presentation, but must be included with the charts for external release]

 

Chart 1B)  Hello, my name is Mike Gamble, I am an electronics engineer for The Boeing Co. (Seattle).   A week ago I had no idea that I would be here to present this study.  Would like to thank the conference chair person for pulling the right strings.  This presentation is from a different perspective more of a macroscopic overview.  Enjoy the gravity presentation and let me know what you think about it.  Do apologize for the MatLab type-Os and scaling issues there was no time to get them re-run and through document control. 

 

    A little HISTORY 

I started this “Study of Gravity” back in 2007 more as a curiosity than research.    Looking in textbooks all you find about gravity is the statement that it is an attraction between two bodies and varies as the mass and separation.  I thought there must be more to it, so I started collecting data about the earth.  In engineering you start with a ballpark number (WAG or SWAG) and work the problem from there.  Being of the electronics type I was trained to think in terms of waves, harmonics and frequencies.  The “wow moment” in the research came when I realized that the harmonic waveshapes were aligning very close to that of the measured data.  After that things got real interesting! 

 

Chart 2)    Steps in my gravity research.  These charts cover the first two bullets.

 

Chart 3)    SECTION 1   GRAVITY DOCUMENTATION

      The next charts cover what’s commonly known about the earth and gravity.

 

Chart 4)    Starting with the basic definition of the earth’s gravity: 

      A radial field of acceleration with an average surface value of 32ft/ sec2.

a)  X-Axis defined as “Equatorial”

b)  Y-Axis defined as “Polar”

 

Chart 5)    Moving further out, a diagram of the “Van Allen Radiation Belts” showing their size, 

                 shape and location.

 

Chart 6)    Moving further out, a diagram of “Geosync(hronous) Orbit” around the earth.

 

Chart 7)    Moving further out, a diagram of earth’s magnetic shell the “Magnetosphere”

                 showing its location and earth’s high rate of movement.

SPESIF PITCH NOTES(cont) 2/26/09

 

Chart 8)  SECTION 2   GRAVITY ANALYSIS 

    The analysis is divided into four parts:

Starting with short sections on: 

a) Relevant Equations and 

b) Wave Basics

Then the main section on: 

c) Waveshape Generation 

Followed by a short section on:

d) Tesla’s Measurements

 

Chart 9)   The next three charts cover some “Relevant Equations” as they apply to

       this “Study of Gravity”. 

 

Chart 10)  Newton’s famous equation for making things move.

 

Chart 11)  The mathematical relationship between Acceleration, Velocity and Position.

 

Chart 12)  The right hand electric motor rule:

       Force is the “cross product” of the Electric and Magnetic fields.

 

Chart 13)  The next four charts cover “Wave Basics” relevant to this study.

 

Chart 14)  Textbook relationships of:  Wavelength, Amplitude, Nodes and Peaks.

 

Chart 15)  Textbook relationships of:  Average, RMS(root mean square) and Peak

                  wave measurements as they apply to gravity data. 

 

Chart 16)  Textbook definition of the generation of Standing Waves.

 

Chart 17)  Textbook definition of the generation of Polarized Waves. 

 

Chart 18)   The following charts show the proposed gravity waveshape details.  The individual

       components and the combined result in both the time and frequency domains.

 

Chart 19)  Proposed waveshape for the generation of the donut shaped rings of the “Van Allen Belts” .       Requires two (dipole) feedpoints in the Y-axis (polar) to generate nodes on the Y-axis

      and a peak on the X-axis (equatorial). 

 

Chart 20)  Proposed waveshape for the generation of the “Magnetosphere” shell.  Requires one

       feedpoint at the center (origin) to generate a spherical shell in both the X and Y axis.

 

Chart 21)  Shows the harmonic placements of the wavelengths for the Magnetosphere, 

       Geosync orbit and earth.

 

Chart 21A)  Shows the details of the fundamental wavelength completely enclosing the planet

                   structure.

 

Chart 22)  Shows the estimated Gravity frequencies and harmonics based on the given data.

 

Chart 23)  Shows the harmonic frequency content of the “Van Allen Radiation belts”.

SPESIF PITCH NOTES(cont) 2/26/09

 

SECTION 2   WAVESHAPE GENERATION (cont)

 

Chart 24)  Shows the three possible planet core types depending on the value of the gravity wave at

       the center (origin) “+”plus, “-“minus and “0”zero.

 

Chart 25)  The next two charts cover the Y-Axis (polar) proposed waveshape. 

 

Chart 26)  Shows the Y-Axis estimated waveshape based on the given data:

Three types of core centers (origin)

Big negative dip for the surface gravity

“S” curve at 1x lambda (geosync) 

“S” curve at 2x lambda (magnetosphere) [off page – MatLab scaling] 

(same shape as “geosync” but smaller)

 

Chart 27)  Fourier analysis (frequency domain) of Y-axis (polar) estimated waveshape

      shows three harmonics for all core types.

 

Chart 28)  The next two charts cover the X-Axis (equatorial) proposed waveshape. 

 

Chart 29)  Shows the X-Axis estimated waveshape based on the given data.

(same) Three types of core centers (origin)

(same) Big negative dip for the surface gravity

(additional) “S” curve at 1/4x lambda (inner belt)

(additional) “S” curve at 1/2x lambda (outer belt)

(same) “S” curve at 1x lambda (geosync) 

(same) “S” curve at 2x lambda (magnetosphere) [off page]

 

Chart 30)  Fourier analysis of X-axis (equatorial) estimated waveshape shows four

      harmonics for all core types.

 

Chart 31)  Documents the fourier analysis errors:

Loss of phase data

Freq resolution (bin width) 

Relative amplitude/phase effects frequencies

 

Chart 32)  Conclusions and correlations of the proposed waveshape data.

Number of harmonics

Harmonic frequencies

 

Chart 33)  Show the generation of the harmonic gravity waveshape equation using four frequencies

       and four phases – produces 64 possible combinations.

 

Chart 34) The next charts show the Y-Axis (polar) curve fit equations for the different core types.

 

Chart 35)  Best of six “Hollow core thin crust” plotted (Calculated VS Estimate)

Not a good fit.

Chart 36)  Best of five “Hollow core thick crust” plotted (Calculated VS Estimate)

Very good fit!

SPESIF PITCH NOTES(cont) 2/26/09

 

SECTION 2   WAVESHAPE GENERATION (cont)

 

Chart 37)  Best of seven “Solid core” plotted (Calculated VS Estimate)

Not a good fit.

 

Chart 38)  The next chart shows X-Axis (equatorial) curve fit equations for the different core types.

      (Did not include the charts for: “Hollow core thin crust” or “Solid core” as both

      were not good fits)

 

Chart 39)  Same “Hollow core thick crust” plotted (Calculated VS Estimate)

Also a good fit!

 

Chart 40)  Analysis and conclusions for the curve fitting plots (Calculated VS Estimate).

Hollow Core – Thin Crust equation with center (origin) feedpoint – BEST fit.

Waveshape might change some with dipole feedpoints.

 

Chart 41)  Analysis and conclusions for using dipole feedpoint wave generation.

Fundamental frequency same amplitude in X and Y axis

Second harmonic reduced amplitude in Y-axis

Third harmonic reduced amplitude in Y-axis

Fourth harmonic canceled in Y-axis

Need a (1/8x) lambda dipole of the fundamental frequency

 

Chart 42)  X-Axis (equatorial) plot of dipole feedpoints for “Hollow core thick crust”.  Note similarities

      and differences between X-axis center (origin) feedpoint (Chart 39).

a)  (same) Inner belt

b)  (same) Outer belt

c)  (same) Geosync

d)  (same) Magnetosphere

e)  (different) surface gravity a little less 

e)  (different) core type – changed Hollow to Solid

f)  (different) Higher noise floor – more ripple in the background

 

Chart 43) Y-Axis (polar) plot of the same dipole feedpoints.  Note similarities and differences

      between Y-axis center (origin) feedpoint (Chart 36).

a)  (same) Geosync

b)  (same) Magnetosphere

c)  (different) surface gravity a little greater

d)  (different) core type – changed Hollow to Solid

 

Chart 44)  The dipole feedpoints cause the planet shape to be elliptical (flattened) due to small

      value differences in the generated waveshape on the X and Y axis.

 

Chart 44A)  The wave harmonics of the earth’s atmosphere, surface and core.  The fundamental

         bounds the ionosphere, the second harmonic bounds the mantle and fourth harmonic

         bounds the inner core.  All three harmonics stir the (liquid) outer core.

SPESIF PITCH NOTES(cont) 2/26/09

 

SECTION 2   WAVESHAPE GENERATION (cont)

 

Chart 45)  The following charts show the 3D composite plots of the X and Y axis gravity waveshapes

       along with the fourier analysis.

 

Chart 46)  Gravity waveshape plotted in normal 3D space.  A large (node) spike at the

       center (origin) and a set of harmonic ripples.

 

Chart 47)  Same gravity waveshape only rotated 90deg to show

       the gradient  field. (MatLab requirement)

 

Chart 48)  Fourier analysis of the same gravity waveshape.  Note the four harmonics.

 

Chart 49) The next charts cover Tesla’s data from his Colorado experiments.

 

Chart 50) Tesla’s electromagnetic frequency spectra of the earth:

a)  Contains four harmonics  

 

Chart 51)  Fourier analysis of Tesla’s frequency data. 

       Note: similarities to the fourier analysis of the proposed gravity waveshape (chart 48).

Chart 51A)  “Schumann Resonances” data. 

        Same as Tesla’s data (chart 50) only with fifth harmonic.  At the time I 

        did this study I knew nothing about “Schumann Resonances” only had

        Tesla’s data.  He never got much credit for any of his work (power grid, motors).

 

SECTION 3  GRAVITY CONCLUSIONS

 

Chart 52)  The next chart wraps up this “Study of Gravity”.

 

Chart 53)  Results and conclusions of this study are:

Gravity is generated by low frequency standing waves

These same waves also generate:

Magnetosphere

Radiation belts

Planet core layers

It is composed of four harmonic frequencies

With a dipole source

Is electromagnetic in origin [Tesla data]

Frequency being the Scale Factor

Atoms  [high Ghz]

Check this out  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6872

It would appear that a very serious problem exists with our modern wireless communications systems.

If cell phones cause cancer and other related health hazards there must be some effect to the environment and perhaps to the planet itself.

We are gradually wrapping the planet in a blanket of electromagnetic radiation and we wonder why there might be changes in the weather?

The big problem in coming to terms with this issue has to do with the science or science as it exists today.

Our modern science does not acknowledge an underlying force of energy.

Consequently if you were to ask a physicist why the universe does not fold on itself you would be told because it doesn’t.  The universe is not folding on itself so what’s the problem?

If we do not know the answer we do not know very much about what maintains and supports physical structure.

If we consider an underlying force of energy sustaining and perpetuating physical structure we might get the idea that physical structure is a continuance as it is continuously changing, as in a dynamic state.

So the dynamics determining the form and function of physical structure are determined on the basis of a dynamic force of energy.

If an extremely non-uniform potential acts upon the continuance of physical structure a distortional effect occurs, whereby the structural dynamics of the physical structure are distorted in a manner affecting its form and function.

Therefore these distortional effects are not limited to or restricted to flora and fauna but must also have an effect on inanimate objects as well, such as bridges, buildings, ships, planes etc. as well as the biosphere and the geosphere.

And when we take into account the short history of these modern inventions and the limited knowledge we possess concerning our planet it could be stated that we are not at all sure as to what the effects might be or just how severe they might be.

If we can use the history of the nuclear agenda as an example, where many of the hazards have been down played and glossed over we might realize there is good reason to listen carefully to what the experts are saying.

DANGER…EXTREME DANGER!

 ” I presented my “Study of Gravity” at the (SPESIF) Space Propulsion and Energy Science International Forum on Feb 26/09.  Strange as it seems it was one of the more normal papers presented.  However, it did raise a few eyebrows….”  

gravity4b

The above is a pdf file of Michael A. Gamble’s Gravity Research Update.

In our modern world we have found the most inefficient methods possible to power our human industry, whereby it might be possible to standardize and regulate the distribution of power to the end user.

When you consider a hydro electric project where water power is employed to turn huge turbines which in turn produce electricity distributed through high voltage transmission lines you might consider the inefficiency of this system.

Mechanical power is converted to electric power which is distributed through transmission cables and in many cases once again converted to mechanical power.

Much of the electricity is lost in transmission and much more is simply wasted, much like carrying water in leaky buckets riddled with holes.

Many ridicule over unity concepts and free energy, but do not stop to consider the hydro electric project where water is the main source of power and ask…where does the water get its power or what is the original source of energy allowing for water power to exist?

Some would say gravity, but what energy source provides for gravity?

And some might counter with; it doesn’t matter.

It does matter, but we avoid going there and taking a long hard look at the situation.

Why?

Because the bottom line answer is free energy, aether energy, zero point energy…the energy of universe, the energy which sustains and perpetuates all physical form and function.

To simply say energy is proportional to mass doesn’t cut it, it’s an outdated inadequate statement.

We live in a dynamic universe and despite our ignorance the earth keeps turning and remains in a fairly stable orbit around the sun.

This solar system in which we exist is said to be powered by the sun, which is said to be converting mass to energy via a fusion process…in other words the sun is perceived to be a fusion furnace.

This fits right in with our perception of energy conversion involving the consumption of a fuel.

We find a theory to accommodate our primitive belief system, therefore free energy is a hoax in the minds of so many.

Show me they say…show me this free energy.

First you show me yours, show me this amazing energy of which you speak.  You can show me the results but you cannot show me energy, it’s invisible.

Every power system known to exist depends on a resistant effect.  A resistant effect drives our human industry.  Anything beyond this limited view of universe and we are lost, completely and hopelessly lost.

We use rockets for space exploration and consider ourselves somewhat advanced in our ability to do so, whithout considering the futility of our efforts.

How is this possible?  Because we educate people to be ignorant.  Ignorance is a highly regarded state.  It keeps us in our place and keeps us chained to the wheel.

The confined limitations of our modern civilization leads us down a oneway street to oblivion.

We consider nuclear power to be an intelligent choice, when in fact it is nothing less than a case of cooking the books to reflect an image of self-importance and achievement.

Where do we get this circular thinking concerning energy when the entire universe continues to unfold right before our eyes while we seem completely incapable of connecting the dots.

An accelerating expansion of universe requires a dynamic increase in energy, without which it would immediately fold upon itself.

Is such a simple concept beyond our ability to grasp?

The universe and every aspect of universe is dynamic, yet we insist loudly that free energy is an impossible consideration.  Impossible they say, quite impossible.

The only question you should be asking is how to access the underlying energy of universe to power our human industry, but that question does not arise.

There appears to be no stimulation to rise above the existing level of ignorance and perceive the apparent possibilities.

Free energy, gravity control and a better life for all…the desire seems to be missing in action.