AMAZING ARTICLES #19:
IONIC JET, AND ANTIGRAVITY ENGINES
"complexity is only deceiving simplicity."
Most of the under average-intelligence people
believe that fluorescent bulbs are more energy-efficient than
incandescent bulbs are.
Note that just a shade further from "details" there is the Global Picture, as follows:
A. Fluorescent bulbs work with mercury--a terrible poison--and that means we save on "polluting
emissions" at the expense of poisoning our environment with mercury. Regardless of how careful we are, a
of fluorescent bulbs ends up today--and tomorrow--broken, therefore they release uncontrollably the mercury
If we complain about "global warming" these days, tomorrow we may have
mercury poisoning". Please, DO NOT FOOL WITH MERCURY POISONING PEOPLE!
B. Fluorescent light is terribly damaging/stressful for the human eyes because it is a narrow-band optical radiation. This was
never publicized: using fluorescent light is ruining our eyesight. That is the reason most people experience
headaches after the first 2-3 hours at their workplace, when fluorescent light is used
Consider this: in addition to being a narrow-band optical radiation--therefore,
alarmingly dangerous for any eye, animal or
human--fluorescent light is also pulsing at 60 Hz in N America (and possibly in Australia) and at 50 Hz in Europe and
the rest of the World. Although 60 Hz is a little bit better, it is still EXTREMELY straining for our eyesight. Consequently,
people feel "tired" and "sleepy" after the first few hours at work.
Just a rough estimation,
it is possible that people work at under 40% of their intellectual capacity due to
the improper, more precise,
torture-like illumination conditions at their work places. Further, damaged or tired eyes generate
a lot of abnormal functionality for your entire organism, in general, and for your nervous system in particular.
contrast, incandescent bulbs have a very slow raise/fall thermal curve, therefore the pulsing nature of the power
grid disappears COMPLETELY! In rich countries, where fluorescent light is used
percentage of people having vision troubles is overwhelmingly alarming.
For those who do not know, over 75% of the eye-glasses wearing people could throw them away, if they take care of
their eyes appropriately. What they need is plenty of natural light, and a distant, nice horizon/sky-line to
watch (marine environments are the best). The eye is an extremely complex organ, and it does have the capacity to correct impaired vision
BY ITSELF! All
you need to do to help your eyes to recover is to eliminate all sources of narrow-band optical radiation--particularly the
despicable fluorescent light!
Mind this please: the closest artificial light to the natural one--the sunlight--is generated ONLY by
the old, reliable incandescent bulb. [Again, the eye is nourishing and
healing itself only with natural light.]
C. Incandescent bulbs may be easily improved to become 10 times more
energy-efficient compared to what they are today.
Just think of the nice, white light generated by a tiny flashlight bulb working at 3V! Unfortunately, the
experts--people having stunning resumes with tens of years of light-bulb experience--advocate/promote
only the fluorescent light.
The psychological drive behind their action is, the incandescent light-bulb is way too simple,
technically, while the florescent one offers exciting grounds for "technical ingenuity"!
People adore making things far more complex than what they need to be. Note again that
fluorescent light is terribly
damaging for our eyes in particular, and for our health in general--just talk about this
thing with a true specialist
doctor (if you will ever manage to find a honest and a humanitarian one).
D. In spite of the apparent savings in energy, fluorescent bulbs have additional,
hidden energy-costs related to their complex fabrication process, and to the technology needed to destroy them
safely. Overall, fluorescent bulbs are a lot more "energy inefficient", and they do generate
E. Due to their ballast or switching driver module, fluorescent lights
generate harmonics into the power grid. The costs associated to
harmonics are staggering today, and they will become prohibitive in the
F. Finally--we need to end this, although there is a lot to talk
about--in order to compensate for their narrow-band
optical radiation, the power
of the equivalent fluorescent light installed is always GREATER than when
employing incandescent bulbs. For example, if
one 40W incandescent bulb is
sufficient to light a work-desk, designers will install TWO 40W fluorescent lights for a
total of 80W of consumed power! This is already done in all places where
fluorescent light has been implemented. Saving on emissions you say? Ha!
This little social-psychology
incident is a perfect example of the existing/real level of average social
intelligence (read A38). The truly bright idea would have been to replace all indoors existing fluorescent bulbs with
incandescent ones. As for reducing the existing polluting emissions, there are very, very many better strategies; all it
takes is just a little bit of . . . intelligence.
[Fragment from "Global Picture in News" April 26, 2007.
© Corollary Theorems Ltd.]
Natural antigravity was first described in
Three Stories, "PEASANT AMBASSADOR". It says there
that the antigravity vector exists naturally
in all atoms; however, we cannot "see" its manifestations, because the gravity component is greater. The
obvious question is: "How is it possible the gravity vector is greater than the antigravity one?" We
are used to see that forces, and their associated reactions, do balance each other;
therefore, how could a force and its reaction
We have mentioned a few times by now about the Universal Imbalance Principle, and time has come to explain
it--better said, only a part of it. Now, we have a few Physical Laws, among which the
Energy Conservation Law
is the most important. This Law says:
Energy is not created; energy is not consumed; energy changes, only,
from one form to another.
As you can see, all Physical Laws, principles, and theorems start from a statement, or a set of statements, as the
one above. Mathematical implementation of those statements comes later, and it may take many forms. Anyway, the
point to note is, the Energy Conservation Law is one of the most important in Physics, if not THE most
important. Hundreds and thousands of corollary theorems have been postulated, based on this law--for example,
consider the Kirchhoff's equations for electrical nets: they were written according to the Energy Conservation Law.
The point to note is, this mighty Law brings a perplexing observation: before Big-Bang,
at Time Zero, there was
NOTHING. Next, the Big-Bang comes, and that pops-up a terrible amount of energy into the Atomic Universe. In fact,
it looks like that energy is still being injected today in this
side--please read our previous articles.
It appears the Energy
Conservation Law doesn't work in this spectacular Big-Bag instance which is also THE most
important physical process/aspect for the entire Atomic Universe. Now, the truth is the Law works just fine. All energies existing in our Atomic Universe come from
from Primary Energies--details are presented in
THREE STORIES FROM HILSA'N TASSA GALAXY and in
The problem is, we cannot measure/detect those Primary Energies, and many doubt that they actually exist.
Well, they HAVE TO
EXIST otherwise the great Energy Conservation Law it is not right, and 99% of our Physics is totally wrong.
point to note is, those Primary Energies ARE NOT energies as we know them; they are SOMETHING capable of
GENERATING energies in our Atomic Universe. In the Subatomic, Primary Energies are not capable to react with each
other. In fact, the few Physics Laws we know are totally different in the
Subatomic--we will take a
closer look at this aspect later. Now, if we do not
take the Primary Energies into consideration, then our entire Atomic Universe makes no sense.
The Universal Imbalance Principle, says:
There is a flow of [energy] from the Subatomic Universe into the Atomic
one, due to . . .
We didn't finish the above statement because we do not intend to discuss the causes of that unidirectional flow
of energy. This deals with the Certitude Factors and the Fundamental Reasons,
only these notions are so
fantastic at this time, that it would be totally futile to attempt explaining them
to you. We will do that gradually,
starting in our SF books.
That imbalance is extremely important because, if it would cease to exist now, then our entire Atomic Universe
disappears instantly. Even more, this imbalance is needed to form the matter
[the atoms] in the Atomic Universe. Consider this, our Atomic
Universe is now 90% Hydrogen atoms, but it was 100% monoatomic hydrogen atoms shortly after the Big-Bang. All
hydrogen atoms miss exactly one electron, in order to complete their "s" electronic orbital, and that
means our Atomic Universe is positively charged, chemically and electrically. Now, the true beauty is, that
perplexing extra positive charge of the monoatomic hydrogen atom DOES NOT COME from the proton!
The question is: "Is that electrical imbalance of our Atomic Universe a good thing or a bad one?"
Not only that it is a good thing, but it is also a necessary one. This time, the
CREATOR--or Mother Nature--gives us
another example of PERFECTION BASED ON IMPERFECTION. If the Hydrogen atom had a complete "s" electronic
orbital, then Hydrogen was an inert element, a noble gas,
therefore it wouldn't react with other elements.
There would be no higher, active, atomic elements--better said, there could be higher atomic elements,
but almost all of them would also be inert, chemically--this means,
bye-bye life! In fact, that inexplicable positive imbalance exemplifies,
that our Atomic Universe has been
built for optimum performance.
As it is mentioned in our SF books, the antigravity vector exists in all atoms, and it is equal to the gravity one.
However, antigravity is much consumed inside the atom, while gravity is needed to structure
the matter in the
outside-atom, and in macro-cosmos. Now, the antigravity vector may be amplified, and there are many practical
ways of doing that.
The difficult thing with these articles is, we try to change the existing
mechanical mentality using
notions that are way too difficult to understand--practically, such notions do not exist, excepting our SF books and these
Amazing Articles. The good news is, we do not have to listen to absurd arguments, therefore we are able to continue with
our articles unobstructed. In time, after many SF books and
Amazing Articles, some people may start
"believing", and that is going to be a very good starting point.
someone mentioned to us that we do not have engines strong enough to
replace the Discovery Shuttle reactive, reusable boosters. That is
perfectly true, but it is only because we didn't try hard enough to research
for a better engine than the chemical reactive one. The efforts should be focused towards implementing the
That is going to take some time, say, 25, 50, 100 years, but the idea is, we
need to start rather sooner than later--in fact, the best time is right now. It is just a matter of planning and good
organization; therefore, we will summarize here a rough scenario. First, although the final purpose is the
antigravity engine, the research activity needs to be developed in parallel with other practical applications; for
example, the first engine to be developed should be the Plasma Jet one.
"How?" will ask most of our readers. You see, up to now we have developed simple applications
based on a single principle, say, reaction OR internal combustion. Time has come to consider a "chain"
of engines, or Physical effects, in order to obtain increased performances. The "hybrid" vehicles/cars
we use today are an
In the Plasma Jet case, we should start with a plasma generator, then with an electrical
generator, and then with an ionic reactor. The working fluid used should be
only water; better said, monatomic hydrogen
and oxygen. This is the least polluting option, and it also has a lot of internal energy--it is only up to us to
use the most of it. That Plasma Jet engine needs to be further developed and optimized into the more performing
Ionic Jet engine--again, while working in parallel on the antigravity engine
First published on July 20, 2005
© SC COMPLEMENT CONTROL SRL. All rights reserved.
» BACK TO TOP