Kinkajou :To say it Again

Kinkajou : WE have had a long introduction to the quantal energy states of atoms, protons and electrons in orbit around atoms. We have introduced
Energy levels in valences.
Energy level changes due to electron spin up and spin down (fine splitting)
Energy level changes due to electron orbital interactions (hyperfine splitting)
Energy Level changes with Proton magnetic axis alignment changes:  with spin aligning to external fields.

We have introduced RF or electromagnetic fields: aka the humble photon as the level for changes in these systems.

These things are important, because we need to avoid putting energy into systems which we know will suck up our energy. We need to avoid triggering valence and spin interactions.

Kinkajou : The key issue we propose in generating gravity is:
How do you change the energy of atoms without triggering valence or spin effects. If you do change the energy of an atomic system e.g. by changing the magnetic dipole moment of an electron without triggering valence, spin or alignment effects, where does the energy go in relaxation mode. Because we know that it cannot be radiated as a photon because the quantal determinants for photon generation by our atomic systems have not been met. The “energy” has to go somewhere else. But Where and How?

Kinkajou : So Let’s Talk About the Gravity Engine.

Erasmus : The periodic table of elements lists the weight for a molar quantity of matter for each of the elements, using an average weighting of isotopes as they may commonly occur on the planet Earth as a basis of this calculation. A mole of atoms such as iron, contains 6.02×10 to the 23rd atoms. And weighs 55.85 g. Therefore, 1000 moles of iron weighs 55.85 kg, (1000 times as much).

Diamond Graphite Coal: Carbon in its many forms

Why is a mole 6.022 x10 23?
The MOLE (mol) is a unit of measurement that is the amount of a pure substance containing the same number of chemical units (atoms, molecules etc.) as there are atoms in exactly 12 grams of carbon-12 (i.e., 6.022 X 1023).

So here we have our amplifiers for each of our atomic gravity producing engines.
6x10E23 (one mole of atomic matter).
1x10E3 (1000 moles) = only 55.85 kg
1x10E10 a magnetic oscillator operating at 10 gigahertz frequencies

Elecrtomagnetic Overlap

1 atom with 10 electrons (depends on our choice of atomic oscillators): give a single x10 factor
This adds up to 6x10E37 of amplification of our gravity production atomic engines. This is enough to make up for the weakness of the gravity force at 1x10-35.

MRI science is important in the generation of gravity since electron related effects require a lot more energy than proton related interaction. So to achieve maximum gravity yield we will likely need to avoid input frequencies equal to the Larmor frequency and to attempt to keep incident energies under the energy of the Larmor frequency photons.

Kinkajou : Yes I can see that by sheer volume and oscillator amplification we have amplified a force enough to be detectable at standard quantities. But how much gravity do you think we can produce?

Erasmus : Again think of the amount of work that can be done by electrical energy. Gravity may not be a force, but the Laws of Conservation of Energy still insist that the work output of the gravity matches the electrical energy input. In short, we can generate as much gravity related work as there is electrical energy supplied, (allowing for losses and inefficiencies of course).
kW in equals kW out.
kWh in equals kWh out.
In terms of force equivalent energy, (remember that gravity itself has no mass and no energy).

Kinkajou : So just how much energy can do how much work?

Erasmus : For example, if a force of 10 newtons (F = 10 N) acts along a point that travels 2 metres (s = 2 m), then W = Fs = (10 N) (2 m) = 20 J. This is approximately the work done lifting a 1 kg object from ground level to over a person's head against the force of gravity.
The work is doubled either by lifting twice the weight the same distance or by lifting the same weight twice the distance.
So the work done in lifting 10,000 kg to 10,000 m can be calculated as follows:
W = F.S   where W equals work/F equals force in newtons/S equals distance.
So using this we have 10×10,000×10,000 equals 1x109 Joules.
If this work is done in 100 seconds, this gives a power rating of  1x109 /100 = 10 MW.
(Actual Electricity used is 1x107  w *100 s/1x103 (con w>kw) /3600 (s/hr) = 277 kwh equivalent: or more general 300Kwh)
Erasmus : The problem with this calculation is that this is the energy difference between the two levels of the gravity field. It does not take into account the work that needs to be done lifting the object against gravity.
Yes. Let’s go again and add that in.

Gravity is a force with 10m/s/s acceleration.
F= m.a
Work therefore : W= m.a.s
W= 10,000 *10*1 for each second of pushing up against gravity. If we do this amount of work, a falling object will stay suspended, falling but being held up.
W=10,000*10*10,000 equals 1x109 Joules.
So we have the same amount of work done just holding position against gravity as the work done.
I.e. We need 600kwh
So we reach a situation of needing an energy of 600 kWh and a power output of 20 MW to do the work to lift 10,000 kg to 10,000m.
This does unfortunately assume 100% efficiency in gravity generation and the conversion of electrical energy to gravity.

Kinkajou : We would expect though, in any gravity generating reaction, energy must be conserved. So any energy which is not lost as heat or light or magnetic photons, will of course be converted into gravity. 

Old Methods of Electrical Power Generation

The simple use of this amount of electricity at $.10 a kilowatt hour, gives a cost of about $60 for lifting 10,000 kg of mass to 10km into the air. Compare this with the cost of rocket propulsion to lift the same mass into the air.

Kinkajou : The figures are so incompatible that I have an absolute sense of horror thinking about our addiction to the use of rockets. Rockets are expensive, have very poor propulsive ability, and even more seriously, you have to spend energy lifting your propulsive mass which then you lose blasting it away. An incredibly inefficient and wasteful process.

Still a 20MW power output is nothing to laugh at. It’s a lot of electricity. We can generate this with nuclear plants or coal/gas fired power stations, but how can we generate this amount of energy “compactly”.

Power Turbine

Kinkajou : Too true.  The answer is that we will likely still need to be able to generate fusion energy.

As you have mentioned before. If we can generate gravity and use it for containment, this should substantially reduce the size and complexity of fusion reactors.

Erasmus : Let’s do some thought experiments - thinking about how gravity could be produced. To generate gravity we need to understand gravity and the quantum world.

Power Turbine

Kinkajou : So How Could we Generate gravity?
Erasmus : The answer we think lies in energy balance. If we apply energy to an atom and its electrons, the electrons can only absorb quantized energy equivalent to the energy difference between the electron shells. The electron can then emit the photon at the frequency that matches the transition energy level.

But what happens if we apply energy to an atom insufficient to force a quantum transition. For example an electric or magnetic field squishes the atom and therefore its electrons. The electrons are constricted. Their angular momentum has changed.

But when the compressive field is relaxed the energy forced into the atom cannot be discharged as a photon. It also cannot be discharged through any of the other known forces: namely weak or strong nuclear forces. There are a limited number of electron or proton transition states to bleed off the energy.

Compression and Tension of Atoms

If we are careful not to match the energy input to the energy of these states, energy will not be emitted as electromagnetic photon quanta.

So the two states of the atom (compressed and uncompressed) have an energy difference. But where has the energy gone.  When an electric or magnetic field is applied to compress the atom, its electrons suffer reduced momentum and therefore energy. When the compression field is released, the electrons spring back to their usual orbitals gaining momentum and gaining energy.  The problem is of course that the momentum and energy changes do not match a valid quantised energy state.

Short Periodic Table : use atoms with maximum electrons in 'p' shells.

Goo : It is obvious the Law of Energy Conservation appears to have been breached. Energy cannot be gained when the compression field is released as the electrons move outwards and gain momentum.

Erasmus : “The answer must lie in the 3DT and x3DT fields of reference.

Compressing the electron, reduces its momentum. This energy could be stored either in the x3DT frame of reference as a relation between the electron and its proton. Or perhaps there is a frequency change in the electron in its valence (shell) orbit.  When the compression is removed, the only force/effect that can act to balance the energy equation is gravity. The energy disappears from the relation side of the equation x3DT. The effect triggered is the release of gravity.

More specifically we need to think in terms of our conception of gravity as a displacement, not a force. When we release the compression field, the electrons are displaced back to their usual orbits/ valances / shells. The gravity effect expands outwards in specific directions as dictated by the direction of the compression field relaxation. The energy stored in x3DT returns to 3DT balancing the energy equation. Conservation of energy rules.

The problem of course is that gravity is very very very weak. So to detect anything, a large amount of gravity needs to be generated (not one atom’s worth). Thankfully, I would anticipate that the effects would follow energy conservation laws, so ‘high energy in’, should equal ‘high gravity effect out’. In short, observable and measurable amounts of gravity should result.

So, we now have the scenario, whereby each atom becomes a little engine for generating gravity. But each atom generates a force 10E35 times smaller than our other forces.

The Structure of the Atom

Erasmus : The question then is: “How do you amplify the output”?”

• Big atoms give you more electron shells per atom to compress, but also a greater chance of bleed  energy to heat through inter electron effects or other unanticipated interactions. To keep efficiency up you need to compromise more shells vs. less interactions.

• Non-ferromagnetic materials are desirable.


Ferromagnetism

When a material is placed within a magnetic field, the magnetic forces of the material's electrons will be affected. This effect is known as Faraday's Law of Magnetic Induction. However, materials can react quite differently to the presence of an external magnetic field. This reaction is dependent on a number of factors, such as the atomic and molecular structure of the material, and the net magnetic field associated with the atoms. The magnetic moments associated with atoms have three origins:   electron   motion, change in motion caused by an external magnetic field and spin of the electrons.

Electrons in a pair spin in opposite directions. So, when electrons are paired together, their opposite spins cause their magnetic fields to cancel each other. Therefore, no net magnetic field exists. Alternately, materials with some unpaired electrons will have a net magnetic field and will react more to an external field. Most materials can be classified as diamagnetic, paramagnetic, or ferromagnetic.

Diamagnetic materials have a weak, negative susceptibility to magnetic fields. Diamagnetic materials are slightly repelled by a magnetic field and do not retain the magnetic properties when the external field is removed. In diamagnetic materials all the electrons are paired so there is no permanent net magnetic moment per atom. Diamagnetic properties arise from the realignment of the electron paths under the influence of an external magnetic field. In the periodic table copper, silver, and gold, are diamagnetic.

Paramagnetic materials have a small, positive susceptibility to magnetic fields. These materials are slightly attracted by a magnetic field and do not retain the magnetic properties when the external field is removed. Paramagnetic properties are due to the presence of some unpaired electrons, and from the realignment of the electron paths caused by the external magnetic field. Paramagnetic materials include magnesium, molybdenum, lithium, and tantalum.

Ferromagnetic materials have a large, positive susceptibility to an external magnetic field. They exhibit a strong attraction to magnetic fields and are able to retain their magnetic properties after the external field has been removed.

Ferromagnetic materials have some unpaired electrons so their atoms have a net magnetic moment. They get their strong magnetic properties due to the presence of magnetic domains. In these domains, large numbers of atom's moments (1012 to 1015) are aligned parallel so that the magnetic force within the domain is strong.

When a ferromagnetic material is in the unmagnetized state, the domains are nearly randomly organized and the net magnetic field for the part as a whole is zero. When a magnetizing force is applied, the domains become aligned to produce a strong magnetic field within the part. Iron, nickel, and cobalt are examples of ferromagnetic materials. Components with these materials are commonly inspected using the magnetic particle method.

Kinkajou : I am not sure how we can utilise diamagnetic or paramagnetic materials in design, but I am sure that experimentation will give a result. Paramagnetic materials have unpaired electrons in their outer shells Diamagnetic materials have a paired electrons in their outer valence shells.

Erasmus : But ferromagnetic effects are out. If you generate magnetic effects, you lose energy to them. You want your output energy as gravity, not as magnetic effects. Though I suppose these could be utilised also somewhat if generated in the right direction. We unfortunately need our compression fields to collapse and the memory effects inherent in ferromagnetism oppose this collapse effect we need.

• Tightly held electrons are best.

•  You also do not want your atomic engines to be dangerously reactive like lithium or to vaporise like the noble gases. Yes you can make these gases solid, but your engine will vaporise if you have any unanticipated heat effects bleeding through.  Adding Oxygen to Lithium metal will create unique effects, largely undesirable.

• You do not want your engine to be conductive like many metals.

• Electrons flowing will create electric currents and lose energy and resist your compression effects. So insulative effects would be desirable over conductive effects.

• Materials that tolerate cooling well, to reduce thermal energy effects on electrons would be more useful.

• A cool engine would run better than a hot engine. But some heat tolerance would be good for stability in unexpected situations. You would need to avoid excessive brittlenesss and conductivity effects with cooling. A cool engine is a tight engine with electrons held in place. But not too cool. The last thing you want is superconductive effects to appear.

• Lighter materials are generally more desirable for building spaceships where weight may matter.

 Excess weight is not an asset for situations where weight is critical. E.g. Beryllium is very light but also very toxic. Small breathed in particles initiate Beryllium disease in humans. Inherently very dangerous and possibly lethal.

• Chemically stable is safest.

Erasmus : I would guess in the short term simple metallic would suffice, but in the long term polymers may well be a better option as the material properties are more modifiable than for simple agglomerations of atomic elements.

Choosing material can be complex e.g. also Elemental iron and iron (III) are paramagnetic and ferromagnetic because of the necessity of unpaired electrons in their orbitals. Iron (II) is also in this same position most of the time. When iron (II) is bonded to certain ligands, however, the resulting compound may be diamagnetic because of the creation of a low-spin situation.  The ferromagnetic properties can also be modified through the medium of polymers.

• We also need to conduct electrical energy generating electromagnetic waves into our atomic engine. We need maximum conductivity, with minimal atomic size to reduce loss into heat through unintended valence shell transitions.

Kinkajou : So the answer: Let’s scan the periodic table and look at some conductivity data. Low energy loss for transmission along our conductor plates would be essential.
Alkali metals: NO
Noble Gases NO
Maximum Atomic Number 36

 This leaves us with:

Lets’ look at the conductivity of our elements.

Kinkajou : Which element has highest conductivity?
Silver
Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of all metals. In fact, silver defines conductivity - all other metals are compared against it. On a scale of 0 to 100, silver ranks 100, with copper at 97 and gold at 76.

But silver is a big atom. Copper is much smaller.

The Gravity Amplifier

Kinkajou : So What Basic Structure can we Envisage for a Gravity Engine?
Erasmus : An alternating but synchronised electric current is applied to paired conductor plates surrounding a layer of “generator” atoms with specific properties:
Small atoms with few electron shells in the generator layer.
Tight electron holding by the atoms in the generator layer.
Non ferromagnetic.
Low absorption of microwave level photons (we propose say 10 GHz, wavelength 3 cm). These are close to phone frequencies and should be quite generatable with current tech.
Atomic Carbon, silicon, calcium, chromium suggest themselves though carbon may have excessive microwave energy absorption. As stated previously, in the long term polymers will give much better control of atomic oscillator properties.

A synchronised current at say 10 GHz is passed through the conductor plates. This gives a radially polarised electromagnetic wave front travelling down the conductor plates.

A magnetic field is passed from front to back. This forces the radial electromagnetic wave front to polarise. The magnetic field of the current becomes perpendicular to the magnetic field applied: i.e. easiest oscillation. The electric field of the plate current becomes aligned with the external magnetic field.
This should generate electric field pressure to the generator atoms parallel to the applied magnetic field. Relaxation of this field should create energetic release of gravity along this axis.

Magnetic fields have very high matter penetration so we should be able to have a good sized engine block- for our oscillator (GRAGO = gravity generating oscillator).
The absorption of electric fields by our generator layer atoms is an issue. How thick should this layer be for optimum? I would suggest 1mm thick as a start line. If silicon atoms (diameter approximately 0.2nm) were in the generator layer, this would give a 2,000,000 atoms thick layer.

Electricity Conducting

Conductor plates of 1mm should be a forgiving start point for construction of a GRAGO. (Gravity Generating Oscillator)  While thickness could be reduced, there is much fine tuning to be done allowing for energy transmissibility (conductive layer), transmitted wave amplitude (conductive layer), efficiency of atomic compression (conductive layer) and, absorption and generation of heat energy (conductive and generator layers).  . What field strengths and frequencies give the greatest efficiencies or output? Years of fun for everyone I am sure.

Kinkajou : Yes. There are a lot of fine tuning possibilities for our gravity generating oscillator GRAGO. And if we start using polymers in the generator layers, things could become very complex indeed.

Goo : The main issue to start is simply “Does the Concept Work?”  Then the issue becomes fine tuning for efficiency.

Conclusions