Your speculation is becoming excessive. Harry On 5/11/2007 11:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> Here is my suggestion to the BBC for a future episode of "Connections", > which of course will have to await the positive conclusion of ongoing > developments. > > Tesla was out of the 'mainstream' for most of his career, and had the > importance of his work officially marginalized (at high levels) from > many concurrent discoveries, which are credited to others. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla > > In 1930 Bothe and Becker found that when the low-penetrating radiation > from radium hit beryllium, an unusually high-penetrating form of > radiation was produced. > > At first, this radiation was thought to be gamma radiation, but later in > 1932 Madame Curie showed that if this unknown radiation fell on paraffin > it could eject protons of very high energy which is not easily done with > gamma radiation. > > Finally in the same year, James Chadwick performed experiments showing > that the gamma ray hypothesis was untenable. He suggested that in fact > the new radiation consisted of uncharged particles of approximately the > mass of the proton, and this uncharged particle he called the "neutron", > a word that had already been in circulation for some years. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chadwick > > Tesla wrote, but *earlier* in this the same year (1932): > > "I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive > device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. > I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them > as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of > the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it > completely justified.... All of my investigations seem to point to the > conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a > charge that we are justified in calling them *neutrons.*" > > What did Tesla's device look like? Hmm... shall we say, not unlike a > simpler version of the Av plug modification of Dr. Stiffler. "Stick an > antenna up in the air, and wire it to one side of a capacitor, the other > going to a good earth ground, and the potential difference will then > charge the capacitor. Connect across the capacitor some sort of > switching device so that it can be discharged at rhythmic intervals, and > you have an oscillating electric output." Moray then expanded on Tesla's > idea to use high-voltage capacitance to create ionic oscillation; and > now Stiffler has expanded this with the use of LEDs, which may be both > an active device as well as a load... The point being that when the LEDs > combine with the open ended coil, where a large spatial volume of "stray > capacitance" which forms what can best be called a 'halo' over the > circuit, and this spatial antenna might operate as a receiver of cosmic > radiation (or ZPE). > > T: "All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they > are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are > justified in calling them neutrons." > > [OK -was T wrong here? probably if you are in the mainstream, or was he > seeing something else which is similar but more evanescent... remember > that only months later news of Chadwick's work indicates high mass and > no charge, to that kind of what we know today as the "neutron" - but the > T also added: > > "They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light." which has the > ring of Tesla's neutron being the neutrino. And yes, folks, he did name > it first, so today, it may turn-out that "everyone is out-of-step but > Tesla." ... to misquote the drill-Sergeant. > > [There is (controversial) evidence that the solar neutrino anomaly may > be related to a flavor-dependent violation of the equivalence principle, > and/or also related to a "superluminosity" conversion, or the 'flipping' > of a superluminous massless particle over to a massive particle at > lightspeed.] > > T:"More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays > and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device > by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic > ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These > charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through > the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large > scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan." > > (reported in the "Brooklyn Eagle" July 10, 1932. ) > > "The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They > shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a power plant is > developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing > energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight." > > Now it is not clear if Tesla's 'cosmic rays' might in fact refer to some > form of ZPE, instead of 'neutrinos' nor if his mechanism -and that of > Dr. Stiffler- might operate to effectively catalyze the conversion > (flipping) of solar neutrinos over to a form of radiation which is then > captured. > > The downside of all this speculation, if it is dependent on the > neutrino, is that Robin is probably correct about the limits of (cosmic) > energy which can be captured this way. It may be as little as 40 watts > per meter^2. > > On the plus side, the average home rooftop in the USA could still power > the house, in an optimized system. This could possibly happen with solar > panels which are augmented during the day, and solely powered at night > by LED arrays. That does not seem likely given the present cost > structure of LEDs (or solar cells) - until you calculate how little > actual raw material is used in them. > > Supply and demand to the rescue? Oil at $200 barrel creates lots of > demand for alternatives. > > Jones >
