Norman Albers

Thanks I'll go Google. What is clever in this design is having two drives so each handles half the power. The wheels are small but pneumatic tires. I shall handle it in moderate terrain. Talk to you in five years.

No, educate me please. I see belts like that here and there.

I am proposing that the vacuum polarization field does not need to have spin or rotational characteristics to transmit magnetic forces. Locally, elements of moving charge can be analyzed in a frame of reference where electric field alone describes the field medium. If the vacuum manifestation Lorentz transforms so as to preserve this relation, then the hypothesis is valid. I have been talking with H.Puthoff on this and have some support.

Ay, ay Cap'n we'll keep things unspecific. This is a new class of tool and I love it. Once I asked a man on an electric wheelchair, outside in town, about his machine. He said it went "quite a while" on a charge, maybe a few miles. Now I rebuild player pianos and there's a class of modern ones made in the 1970's. To slowly turn the perforated roll there is an electric motor geared down as you always must through a gearbox of plastic gears. You guessed it, this is the weak point and thirty years later I have 3 or 4 clients with stripped gears I cannot replace. Bummer, the rest of the piano and player are good. So I e-mailed the garden cart manufacturer, and they answered that for $90 they sell replacement battery (normal lead-acid lifetime, sealed unit) with the two gearcases! I was impressed by this answer, just so they don't go out of business the year before I need it. I should be sure to stock up in a few years. There seems to be no other way to get torque from a small (size of a child's fist) electric motor. This has 26:1 gear ratio.

I tried to enter on this but don't see it, so I will speak without specific manufacturers' names. I got and love the construction of an electric garden cart, delivered for not quite $300, with two powered front wheels and a trailing third, well-castored with a greasefitting. This is a new class of tool(USA in this case) and it perfectly fills my need, carrying loads of firewood, and occassionally road rock mix for potholes. Two hundred pound load, and I don't have to support it. I was going to develop this for $500, and mentioned this a while back. I am 57 years old, live on bountiful land and enjoy chainsawing, but not wheelbarrowing, wood.

I think you're lost in process consideration. Heat which would have been thrown away is needed in the cold. If you did not exchange it you would have to produce it otherwise. . . . . .Yup, I once nursed an old truck with inadequate compression out of Death Valley this way. Warm ride.

Thanks, k@meleon, I am trying to get a grip on the magnitudes to see how much more efficient my Subaru 1.8liter wagon is when I pull heat out rapidly. The opposite question pertains to AC. Both have to be dealt with in smaller machines. Insulation and sunblock become more important. Simple, yes, but a notable change to any high mileage rating I suspect. A lighter vehicle will cruise at what, twenty HP, I'm stabbing here.

When temperatures outside are frigid we really appreciate the heat available from our internal combustion engines. It takes notably longer to heat the engine to where the thermostat opens excess to the radiator (not the heater core). How much more relatively efficient are we now? Figure output of horsepower, take a low cruising output of maybe 40 horsepower. That is like 30 kilowatts. I figure waste heat is of a similar magnitude, and that is a lot of heat, so it seems still wasteful. Is this correct, and, how do electric or hybrids deal with the notable loads of heating and AC cooling in summer? These will be proportionally higher loads to a smaller power plant.

SALLY, YOU'RE GONNA LIKE THIS! . You jogged my thinking to where I have created the hypothesis that the vacuum needs no magnetic densities to transmit "magnetism". Nearly everyone hangs on to some such notion, but I say just as electric force is transmitted electrically in the vacuum dipole population, any current source may be analyzed in Lorentz transform locally, and the interacting element may be treated the same. There need be nothing but electric responses from the vacuum. In a one-word response, H.Puthoff just agreed! He had been assuming (ah, the parsing) that the spins of the virtual population were needed. Sally, I would like to give you some credit here.

In her opening Samurai swing, Sally called B-field mapping "cabalistic". I love this. The reason we do this is that nature manifests many current loops, starting with particle spin, and observed in iron filings. Why, the lines are obvious. "You say potato, and I say potahto." Whatever is useful, just so it's right.

Yes, a current can be Lorentz-transformed and expansions are useful. Consider just a one-species current flow, then transform yourself to where it seems stationary. You have "lost" the magnetic field, but you will recalculate the charge density per unit length, which has transformed also. My musing asks if this means we do not need the vacuum to have permeability per se. Can vacuum dipole fluctuations, which can be seen to support electric fields, simply be the medium of "magnetism", which is as Sally points out, a certain magnification of co-linear force?

Respect is the beginning of civilization; sanitation is the cornerstone.

I am enjoying discussion with H. Puthoff on gravitation and vacuum polarizability. He published the isotropic case, and I elucidate the Schwarzschild case of distinct radial and transverse permittivity. These are seemingly the two possible ways to go with the GR differential setup. Previously this is called "PV" theory. Most others put a scalar permittivity into the Schwarzschild metric; I seek to construct this anisotropic metric from fundamental thoughts of vacuum physics in the particle scale. Given the isotropic assumption, Puthoff derives "dark gray holes", or no event horizon save the central singularity. The same tweaky relationship between radius and circumference does apply, as we are used to, exterior to a BH.

Never forget the three fundamental oxymorons: military intelligence, Irish music, and Congressional oversight.

This says there are only strings. Lisa Randall, where are you?

Many of you will be happy as I to hear that help is now available to people who talk too much. There's an organization called "Onandonanon".

Your are only allowed one guess and I know mine!

If it is so that there are no transverse modes propagated then we may say these two dimensions are curled up, no? Permittivity near an event horizon is asymptotically large, so absorption lengths will be short. Curiously this is not the case in toward the singularity.

I think of waveguides as mirrors, or rather a little hall of mirrors tuned to propagating a wavelength.

I am just beginning to study possible vacuum physics of magnetic permeability. All of my work has centered on polarizability as prime mover for the phenomena of electrons, photons, and now gravitation. I encounter now the need to statistically model the vacuum. I have already made statements about fluctuations of electromagnetic fields and of charge density. If one includes rotations in the vacuum virtual manifestations, as in rotating virtual pairs, even if not of the same origin of local fluctuation, then there is the germ of permeability theory. At the moment I am most concerned about interpreting possibilities inside the BH. If permeability remains positive while electric permittivity becomes negative, then there are no transverse radiation modes here. I welcome help to understand our modelling of the vacuum, and of the basic construction of Fock space. I feel all questions lie here. I start with a picture of electrons, or other charges, being a resonance of the vacuum field and affecting its conformation. Most of the papers I read seem to speak of a scalar permittivity field "in a Schwarschild metric space", and I need to know if I am arguing differently from the bottom up, given that basic metric properties are shown in my charge fields.

The whole point is that the matter field collapsed. Inside may be only radial spaghetti. It is pretty common understanding that going in to the singularity there is "spahettification", but I don't share the 'proper frame inside' picture.

Rather than use the term 'fragments' how about if I use the term 'vacuum polarization'?

It looks to me like the Schwarzschild metrics of a black hole (BH) yield a negative quantity for the square of light-speed for transverse waves inside the event horizon, and this says to me that they cannot propagate. Is this accepted understanding? Radially things are positive, at least.

Scicop, I eat salsa every day and yes I am more used to it tastewise and in my digestion. Often meat and fish are relatively slow moving through the gut, so the balanced diet with grains and vegetables (and maybe beans), nicely spiced, is the ticket. If you're eating Mexican food, scarf a few tortillas. Once a new China Buffet opened, and I went nuts the first time, Oh yes I love kimchee and wasabi and hot mustard and red chili sauce on shrimp, and yes I blew out my digestion for three days.

Check out 'anisotropic vacuum polarization'.