|
Chet, I believe Larmor's equation forms the basis for Barbat's work. The main shifts of paradigm are 1) We have to accept that low "effective" mass electrons actually are lower mass than normal. They have been observed for decades doing things that indicate they have lower mass. But because they tend to look like they are producing more energy out than in, and people are convinced that is impossible, they have made up other "relativistic" explanations for their behavior, and called them low "effective" mass, meaning "it looks like it's lower than normal mass, but we don't believe it."
The second paradigm shift Barbat is responsible for is the rejection of Helmholtz's famous claim that Newton's laws of thermodynamics applied to electrodynamics and magnetic energy. Barbat has gone through Helmholtz's original paper of 1847 that was presented to - and rejected by - the Berlin Society of Physicists. Helmholtz went on to self-publish the paper, with the disingenuous claim that it had been "read before" the Society, and he won all kinds of awards from royalty for it. However, it was based on flawed science, and Barbat has gone through it carefully and shown exactly why it was incorrect. But, as some of Barbat's writings say, Helmholtz did get something right: If forces exist which are not in line with each other, (which now we know induction and magnetic force not to be in-line), then there exists the possibility for infinite gain or loss of energy. TRUE. Helmholtz just assumed that all forces were in-line, so this situation wouldn't exist.
Think about it. An electron continually circles around a proton, without falling to the center or falling off. No one puts energy into it to make it do that; it just goes all the time. Additionally, that electron constantly emits energy and mass in the form of photons (radiation). No one is putting fuel in or material, yet out comes energy and mass, constantly. That fact in itself shows that we're nuts if we don't think there's infinite energy out there.
Barbat's genius lies in his willingness to accept that Hubbard's generator did what the reporters said it did, rather than poo-pooing it because it was unexplainable at the time. If it did work, then there had to be something wrong with our accepted version of the law of conservation of energy. So he went back through about two centuries of original papers, from Newton, Ampere, Gauss, Helmholtz, Maxwell, even Einstein, Bohr, you name it. And it was at Helmholtz where the science went haywire, he shows.
Another breakthrough Barbat made was realizing why Hendershot couldn't make his generator work when he tried again around 1960: Copper wire was now shiny, and lacked the cupric oxide coating of old wire. Knowing that, I believe Barbat could have revived the Hubbard and Hendershot type of generators, except that radium is no longer available in the quantities they worked with in the 1920s. So Barbat started looking into other photoconductors that are mentioned in his patent, as they require wavelengths more easily obtainable.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-06, 04:57:38 by itworks »
|
Author
Topic: The Patent Of William Barbat (Read 178808 times)
