Helium II (He II): Potential Source of Pressure Propulsion… *DELETED*

[jatslo]

I would like to know what facts; FACTS are preventing me from speculating in this arena. If you want to defend someone else's theory, then by all means, go ahead, but do not try to pass assumptions as facts on me, because I don't like it. So let us talk of viscosity and Helium II (He II), because from what I can see, (He II) can defy gravity and walk up walls.

 

[yevaud]

There have been experiments compressing substances to hundreds of thousands and even millions of atmospheres.<br /><br />No gravitational byproducts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Yep, look up condensed matter physics and diamond anvils

 

[jatslo]

I have; several hundred times.

 

[jatslo]

I am not going to give up; I am certain that I am right, and I am determined to work this out. I want a high- pressure vacuum, and I am going to utilize Helium II.

 

[nacnud]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

You got a better idea hotshot? Let's here your theory or do you even have one. Why don't you try multiplying your precious anvil pressure and see what happens. Consider masses with weight, then stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, and in my case that be my infinity generator. I am not at all impressed with you or your attitude, so get to work.

 

[nacnud]

Well you can't have a high pressure vacuum; the definition of vacuum is an absence of pressure. Look it's just not worth talking to you about this kind of stuff because you are vehemently opposed to anything that appears in a textbook, or even it seems now a dictionary.

 

[jatslo]

Actually, I am a really nice person.<br /><br />Take a good look at the following first word --- /> "<font color="yellow">Theoretically, space without matter in it. A perfect vacuum has never been obtained; the best man-made vacuums contain less than 100,000 gas molecules per cc, compared to about 30 billion billion (30×10 18 ) molecules for air at sea level. The most nearly perfect vacuum exists in intergalactic space, where it is estimated that on the average there is less than one molecule per cubic meter. In ancient times the belief that “nature abhors a vacuum” was held widely and persisted without serious question until the late 16th and early 17th cent., when the experimental observations of Galileo and the Italian physicist Evangelista Torricelli demonstrated its essential fallacy. Torricelli obtained a nearly perfect vacuum (Torricellian vacuum) in his mercury <b>barometer</b> (Encyclopedia).</font> <--- Do you see the word barometer?<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">A common but incorrect belief is that a vacuum causes “suction.” Actually the apparent suction caused by a vacuum is the <b>pressure of the atmosphere tending to rush in</b> and fill the unoccupied space (Encyclopedia).</font> <--- I want to do the exact opposite of this, and Helium II (He II) gives me the means to achieve this task. I want matter to push; I want it repel; I want high-pressure from this new vacuum I am going to suggest we make. Now, I might not be able to get everything out, but I am certain that the matter the makes up my containment vessel will wish that it were nowhere near that vacuum. <br /><br />"<font color="yellow">There are various methods for producing a vacuum, and several different kinds of vacuum pumps have been devised for removing the molecules of gas or vapor from a confined space. In the rotary oil-sealed pump a rotor turning in a cylinder allows gas to enter through an inlet valve from a space to be evacuated and then pushes it through an outlet</font>

 

[spacester]

OK what the heck, I'll step into the breach . . . <br /><br />jatslo, as you're probably aware, 99.4% of the people who claim to have breakthrough physics and are also untrained in the sciences end up being defeated by the reality of the physical world. IOW their ideas turn out to be hokum just like the learned people said.<br /><br />What you're working with here is the 0.6% - you're asking us to treat you as the exception to the rule<br /><br />For me, as an edubacated engineer who considers open mindedness to be perhaps the most important virtue, when someone comes along who has a chance at being "the lone maverick who turned his ignorance into a strength because he didn't let preconceived notions get in the way", he deserves to be listened to carefully and respectfully. So that's what I've tried to do.<br /><br />I'm a maverick myself, but I accept the physical sciences as I've been taught. They work.<br /><br />What you describe makes no sense on a very basic level unless we throw out some very basic principle of accepted physics.<br /><br />You want an extreme vacuum. You keep calling it a 'high-pressure vacuum" which is quite simply a contradiction in definitions. So you're starting off by redefining words that others use every day. That is a very strong indicator that you will end up in the 99.4%<br /><br />But fine, I'll let the very bad choice of words go because it seems that what you mean by "high pressure vacuum" is an extreme vacuum.<br /><br />But then you talk about using HE in whatever form inside your extreme vacuum. Well accepted physics says that a vacuum cannot be more extreme than a perfect vacuum, and a perfect vacuum is defined as a complete absense of matter. So if HE-whatever is matter, you can't have it inside your vacuum chamber and still have an extreme vacuum.<br /><br />There is a direct contradiction in terms here. This is a common tactic of those who like to put together phony physics ideas and pollute message boards with their silly games. I'm not sa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

Thats not a 'high pressure' vacuum. Your using terms that really shouldn't be put together. By calling it a high pressure vacuum, you are making a mockery of the term vacuum. No wonder no one has a clue what you mean, if you can't even use the language correctly.<br /><br />If you want a relative vacuum that could push, you could try a bubble.<br /><br />You can make a place a charge in a vacuum. Place a positive charge in the center of a vaccum chamber, then fire electrons, so they orbit around it. But considering that your understanding of science includes selecting sentences, out of popular science books or websites, that superficially support your world view. I doubt that you would ever be able to build the devices you want.

 

[jatslo]

"<font color="yellow">For me, as an educated engineer who considers open mindedness to be perhaps the most important virtue, when someone comes along who has a chance at being "the lone maverick who turned his ignorance into a strength because he didn't let preconceived notions get in the way", he deserves to be listened to carefully and respectfully. So that's what I've tried to do.</font><br /><br />Thank You; I am not really a Maverick, per say, because I prefer to work in a team; however, it is difficult to sell something new in an environment where majority rules. With respect to ignorance, I do not really think it is fare to call someone who challenges a hypothecation or theory ignorant; however, if I were ignoring facts then that is a different matter. The fact of the matter is: The definition of a vacuum only describes one side of the story, because you cannot have one without the other. <--- This law: Opposites Attract and visa versa; <br /><br />"<font color="yellow">I'm a maverick myself, but I accept the physical sciences as I've been taught. They work.</font><br /><br />I except facts, and question science fiction; this does not make me ignorant.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">What you describe makes no sense on a very basic level unless we throw out some very basic principle of accepted physics.</font><br /><br />My theory makes perfect sense: If I can utilize a vacuum to generate +gravity, then I can utilize a vacuum to create -gravity, whereas pressure is an effect; therefore, I can measure gravity with a barometer (more advanced barometer).<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You want an extreme vacuum. You keep calling it a 'high-pressure vacuum" which is quite simply a contradiction in definitions. So you're starting off by redefining words that others use every day. That is a very strong indicator that you will end up in the 99.4%</font><br /><br />Fine: Pressure is an effect of vacuum, but (low-pressure is +grav

 

[jatslo]

"<font color="yellow">That’s not a 'high pressure' vacuum. Your using terms that really shouldn't be put together. By calling it a high-pressure vacuum, you are making a mockery of the term vacuum. No wonder no one has a clue what you mean, if you can't even use the language correctly.</font><br /><br />Pressure is an effect of vacuum, whereas there is a +vacuum and a -vacuum. We know how create one of them, and I am trying to create the other one.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">If you want a relative vacuum that could push, you could try a bubble.</font><br /><br />Right, that is why I am here talking about Helium II; however, I am not sure I want to use a bubble, because it would be far more effective if I could direct these waves as in magnitude + direction = Velocity. A expandable bubble/bladder is more like Magnitude = Speed. You see a bubble may make it difficult for me to pass between two objects. <br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You can make a place a charge in a vacuum. Place a positive charge in the center of a vacuum chamber, then fire electrons, so they orbit around it. But considering that your understanding of science includes selecting sentences, out of popular science books or websites, that superficially support your worldview. I doubt that you would ever be able to build the devices you want.</font><br /><br />Actually, I want it to hold a charge, so that I can have a constant electromagnetic field (He II) should hold quite a bit of energy, and I will talk about Tesla later I guess. A charge is not necessarily required to get off the ground. Once I get into space, I can drop a line and tap into the tether, which is a rich source of energy. An electromagnetic field will protect me as I exceed (186,000 ¹⁰⁰) miles per second.

 

[jatslo]

A vacuum that creates high-pressure is far safer, in my opinion, because if the chain reaction gets lose, the vessel will shoot off into space before the balloon / bladder bursts. However, the vacuum that creates low-pressure could create a system that would dive to the planet core and destroy the Earth, and quite possibly our entire solar system.

 

[jatslo]

I was trying to work this thing out last night with injection molding in a process called cold fusion, but I wound up with a simultaneous point of both high and low-pressure without the use of an anti-universe, which surprised me. I am ultimately lost; my sense of direction is chaotic. I don't know which vacuum creates which pressure anymore; however, I do know that there are two that are pressed up to one another.<br /><br />I am thinking that these two opposites are creating gravity, so if I want to create weightlessness, I am now thinking that I will need to push two high-vacuums together, or two low vacuums together. In short, I am almost certain that containment is the wrong approach. In addition, I might need to be off the equator now.<br />

 

[nexium]

Hi jatslo: Perhaps advanced beings are toutoring you. In any case, few if any of us are able to follow your logic.<br />There may be some free energy (or cheap energy) available from He11, but I suspect tons of helium are needed to produce kilowatts. If so, propulsion applications are doubtful.<br />Beyond Neptune it may be practical to produce and restore He11, but ambient temperatures are excessive closer to the Sun.<br />As far as I know He-3 (one nuetron per atom) is a different topic, largely untested. It is likely less costly to bring He-3 from the moon, than to make it from hydrogen and/or common helium He-4 (two neutrons per atom).<br />Some natural gas = CH4 = methane contains about 1% helium. Some of the helium is extracted, but much of it is released into Earth's atmosphere as the supply of helium much exceeds the demand in resent decades. Large government subsidies were available throughout most of the 20th century to stock pile helium, but Senator Proxmire was responcible for cancelling the subsidies, which is a shame as demand for Helium may out strip maximum possible production as soon as next year. Neil

 

[nexium]

As far as I know weightless mass is an oxymoron. Are you thinking of a helium balloon? Is that hold an electrical charge? Why do you think Helium would be superior? An electromagnetic field = EM is photons. The word is a bad choice. EM travels at the speed of light. Earth has a rather weak EM field and a rather weak magnetic field which are different topics. Neil

 

[jatslo]

<p>nexium : Hi jatslo: Perhaps advanced beings are tutoring you. In any case, few if any of us are able to follow your logic. There may be some free energy (or cheap energy) available from He11, but I suspect tons of helium are needed to produce kilowatts. If so, propulsion applications are doubtful. Beyond Neptune it may be practical to produce and restore He11, but ambient temperatures are excessive closer to the Sun. As far as I know He-3 (one neutron per atom) is a different topic, largely untested. 3He) does not have the effect that I am after, but I have not ruled it out. It is likely less costly to bring He-3 from the moon, than to make it from hydrogen and/or common helium He-4 (two neutrons per atom).<br /><br /> Some natural gas = CH4 = methane contains about 1% helium. 4He) is extracted from petroleum products. Some of the helium is extracted, but much of it is released into Earth's atmosphere as the supply of helium much exceeds the demand in resent decades. Well, like I said, I figured out how to produce energy from one drop, and I doubt that I am the only one, so large stock piles seem irrelevant. Large government subsidies were available throughout most of the 20th century to stock pile helium, but Senator Proxmire was responsible for canceling the subsidies</p>

 

[jatslo]

<p>As far as I know weightless mass is an oxymoron. Are you thinking of a helium balloon? Is that hold an electrical charge? Why do you think Helium would be superior? An electromagnetic field = EM is photons. The word is a bad choice. EM travels at the speed of light. Earth has a rather weak EM field and a rather weak magnetic field which are different topics. <br />Helium stays a liquid down to absolute zero because its zero-point energy is such that it cannot become a solid without giving up an amount of energy that is less than that allowed by the quantum theory. Similarly, quantum restrictions keep helium II from behaving like a normal fluid because the energy interactions associated with friction and viscosity in normal fluid flow involve amounts not possible for helium II (Encyclopedia).</p>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">metastable helium atom is formed</font><br /><br />Okay, I am trying to make a metastable helium II Atom, I think? Only I want a much bigger spark!

 

[jatslo]

If you must know, I have been in engineering environments since 1983, which gives me almost 23-years in the field, so where are you?

 

[drwayne]

I really don't think you want to go down that road.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Why? I don't think I have ever talked to this person before. Who is spacester? Looks like spacester lives in Oregon like me.

 

[drwayne]

Debates about experience have a way of turning ugly.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Oh, I wasn't planning on getting into comparing experiences; I am trying to engineer something and I need some engineers over here is all, and I was only trying to imply that I know of engineering mentalities, because of my background. I am not claiming to be an engineer; actually, I represent engineering support, and I am multifaceted, or (J) of all trades. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Are you going to help me create metastable He II?