Monthly Archives: August 2011

The Problems with Cosmology

Why the Universe does NOT add up!

In 2008, Lead re­search­er Al­ex­an­der Kash­lin­sky of NASA’s God­dard Space Flight Cen­ter in Green­belt, and his team, completed a study of three years of da­ta from a NASA sat­el­lite, the Wilkin­son Mi­cro­wave An­i­sot­ro­py Probe (WMAP) using the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. They found evidence of a common motion of dis­tant clus­ters of ga­lax­ies of at least 600 km/s (2 million miles per hour) toward a 20-degree patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.


Kash­lin­sky and col­leagues sug­gest what­ev­er is pulling on the mys­te­ri­ously mov­ing gal­axy clus­ters might lay out­side the vis­i­ble uni­verse.  Telescopes cannot see events earlier than about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) formed; this corresponds to a distance of about 46 billion (4.6×1010) light years. Since the matter causing the net motion in Kash­lin­sky’s proposal is outside this range, it would appear to be outside our visible universe.

Kash­lin­sky teamed up with oth­ers to iden­ti­fy some 700 clus­ters that could be used to de­tect the ef­fect. The as­tro­no­mers de­tected bulk clus­ter mo­tions of nearly two mil­lion miles per hour, to­ward a 20-degree patch of sky be­tween the con­stella­t­ions of Cen­tau­rus and Ve­la. Their mo­tion was found to be con­stant out to at least about one-tenth of the way to the edge of the vis­i­ble uni­verse.


Kash­lin­sky calls this col­lec­tive mo­tion a “dark flow,” in ana­logy with more fa­mil­iar cos­mo­lo­g­i­cal mys­ter­ies: dark en­er­gy and dark mat­ter. “The dis­tri­bu­tion of mat­ter in the ob­served uni­verse can­not ac­count for this mo­tion,” he said.

According to standard cosmological models, the motion of galaxy clusters with respect to the cosmic microwave background should be randomly distributed in all directions.  The find­ing con­tra­dicts con­ven­tion­al the­o­ries, which de­scribe such mo­tions as de­creas­ing at ev­er great­er dis­tances: large-scale mo­tions should show no par­tic­u­lar di­rec­tion rel­a­tive to the back­ground.  If the Big Bang theory is correct, then this should not happen so we must conclude that either (1) their measurements are wrong or (2) the big bang theory is wrong. Since they have measured no small movement (2 million MPH) by 700 galaxy clusters all moving in the same direction, it seems unlikely that their observations are wrong. So that leaves us to conclude perhaps the whole big bang theory is wrong.


In fact, there are numerous indicators that our present generally accepted theory of the universe is wrong and has been wrong all along.   Certainly our best minds are trying to make sense of the universe but when we can’t do so, we make up stuff to account for those aspects we cannot explain.


For instance, current theory suggests that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years old.  This was developed from the Lambda-CDM Concordance model of the expansion evolution of the universe and is strongly supported by high-precision astronomical observations such as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).  However, Kash­lin­sky’s team calculates that the source of the dark flow appears to be at least 46.5 billion light years away.  That would make it three times older than the known universe!  Whatever it is would have to be more than 30 billion years older than the Big Bang event.


Or perhaps we got it all wrong.  Consider the evidence and the assumptions we have drawn from them.


The Big Bang is based on Big Guesses and Fudge Factors

ΛCDM or Lambda-CDM is an abbreviation for Lambda-Cold Dark Matter. It is frequently referred to as the concordance model of big bang cosmology, since it attempts to explain cosmic microwave background observations, as well as large scale structure observations and supernovae observations of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is the simplest known model that is in general agreement with observed phenomena.


·         Λ (Lambda) stands for the cosmological constant which is a dark energy term that allows for the current accelerating expansion of the universe.  Currently, 0.74, implying 74% of the energy density of the present universe is in this form.  That is an amazing statement – that 74% of all the energy in the universe is accounted for by this dark energy concept.  This is a pure guess based on what has to be present to account for the expansion of the universe.  Since we have not discovered a single hard fact about dark energy – we don’t know what it is or what causes it or what form it takes – Lambda is a made up number that allows the math formulas to equal the observations in a crude manner.  We do not know if dark energy is a single force or the effects of multiple forces since we have no units of measure to quantify it.  It is suppose to be an expansion force that is countering the effects of gravity but it does not appear to be anti-gravity nor does it appear to be emanating from any one location or area of space.  We can observe the universe out to about 46 billion light years and yet we have not found a single observable evidence for dark energy other than its mathematical implications.


·         Dark matter is also a purely hypothetical factor that expresses the content of the universe that the model says must be present in order to account for why galaxies do not fly apart.   Studies show that there is not enough mass in most large galaxies to keep them together and to account for their rotational speeds, gravitational lensing and other large structure observations.  The amount of mass needed to account for the observations is not just a little bit off.  Back in 1933, Fritz Zwicky calculated that it would take 400 times more mass than is observed in galaxies and clusters to account for observed behavior.  This is not a small number.  Dark matter accounts for 22% of all of the matter in the universe.  Since Zwicky trusted his math and observations to be flawless, he concluded that there is, in fact, all the needed mass in each galaxy but we just can’t see it.  Thus was born the concept of dark matter.  Although we can see 2.71 x 10 23 miles into space, we have not yet observed a single piece of dark matter.  To account for this seemingly show-stopping fact, advocates say, “well, duh, it’s DARK matter”, you can’t SEE it!”.  However, it appears that it is not just dark but also completely transparent because areas of dense dark matter do not stop stars from being visible behind the dark matter.  So, 22% of all the mass in the universe cannot be seen, is, in fact, transparent, has never ever been observed, and does not appear to have had any direct interactions with any known mass other than the effects of gravity.


·         The remaining 4% of the universe consists of 3.6% intergalactic gas and just 0.4% makes up all of the matter (and energy) that makes up all the atoms (and photons) of all the visible planets and stars in the universe. 


ΛCDM is a model.   ΛCDM says nothing about the fundamental physical origin of dark matter, dark energy and the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations: in that sense, it is merely a useful parameterization of ignorance.


One last problem with modern cosmology.  There is a very poor agreement between quantum mechanics and cosmology.  On numerous levels and subjects, quantum mechanics does not scale up to account for cosmological observations and cosmology does not scale down to agree with quantum mechanics.  Sir Roger Penrose, perhaps one of the pre-eminent mathematicians in the world, has published numerous studies documenting the failure of our math to accurately reflect our observed universe and vice versa.  He can show hundreds of failures of math to account for observations while showing hundreds of observations that contradict the math we believe in.


The truth is that we have done the best we can but we should not fool ourselves that we have discovered the truth.  Much as we once believed in ether, astrology, a flat earth and the four humours – we must be willing to expand our thinking that notions like dark matter are ingenious and inventive explanations that account for observations but probably do not relate to factual and realistic natural phenomenon.


There is, however, a logical and quite simple explanation of all of the anomalies and observations that perplex cosmology today.  That simple explanation is described in the next report called “Future Cosmology”.

Fast Boat – No Power


I grew up around boats and have had several of my own – power and sail.  I also did the surfing scene in my youth but that was back when the boards were 12 feet long and weighted 65 pounds or more.  When I had a sailing sloop, I was fascinated by being able to travel without an engine.  I began experimenting with what other kinds of thrust or moving force I could use to move me over water.  I eventually came up with something that is pretty neat.


My first attempt was to put an electric trolling motor on my 12-foot fiberglass surfboard and a small lawn mower battery.  Later, I added a solar panel to charge the battery.  A newer one that I tried about two years ago was much larger and made enough power that I could use the motor at low speed for several hours.  I put a contoured lounge chair and two tiny outriggers on it and traveled from Mobile AL to Pensacola, FL, non-stop in one day.  I liked it but not fast enough.


Surfing always surprised me at how fast you can go.  Even normal ocean and Gulf waves move faster than most boats – averaging about 25 MPH.  I wanted to make a boat that could use that power.  A boat that was featured in an article in Popular Science especially motivated me.  The Suntory Mermaid II, an aluminum catamaran was built by Yutaka Terao in 2007 and has been tested.  It will sustain a speed of 5 knots using an articulated fin (foil) that is activated by the up and down motion of the boat in the waves.  This obviously works but it is slow and obviously depends on bobbing up and down.  I wanted a smoother ride and to go faster.  Much faster.  It took a few years but I did.


At first I took the purely scientific approach and tried to computer model the Boussinesq equations along with the hull formula and other math calculations to help design a method for keeping the boat in the optimum point on the wave.  I even got Plato to help and this gave me some background but the leap from model to design was too difficult to design and I was confident I could figure it out. 


What I learned is that ocean waves vary by wavelength and that varies their speed.  The USS Ramapo calculated that waves they encountered were moving at 23 meters per second and had energy of 17,000 kilowatts in one-meter length of those waves.  That is 51 miles per hour and enough energy to move a super freighter.  That is about twice as fast as the average wave.  Waves with a wavelength of about 8 meters in deep water will have a speed of about 10 m/s or about 22 miles per hour – a very respectable speed for a boat.  The energy in a wave is equal to the square of its height – so a 3m wave is 9 times more powerful than a 1m wave but even a 1 meter wave has more than enough energy to move a boat hull through the water.


I started with a small 21-foot motorsailer with a squared off stern and a deep draft keel.    I selected this because it had a narrow hull and had a deep draft for a boat this size.  It also had an unusual keel design – instead of a deep narrow keel, it extended from just aft of the bow, down to a draft of nearly 5 feet all the way back to the stern and then rose vertically straight up to the transom – giving an area of almost 85 square feet of keel to reduce the lateral forces of wave and wind action.


I installed electric motor thrusters below the waterline on the port and starboard of the stern with an intake facing down on the stern.  These were water jet thrusters I salvaged from some old outboards with bad engines.  I put in electric starter motors from cars to run the jet thrusters.  This gave me near instant yaw control so I could keep the stern of the boat facing the wave. 


After I got the yaw thrusters working and tested, I replaced the inefficient starter motors with brushless DC motors.  My new water jet thrusters are mounted on fore and aft look like a shrunk down version of the Azimuth Stern Drives (ASD) or “Z” drives used in ASD tugs.  The gimbaled thruster housing extends outside the hull while the BLDC motors are safely inside.


I then experimented with the transom/stern design and found that having a weather deck (one that could take on and empty a wave of water without sinking the boat) was essential but it could also simply be a sealed deck so that water could not get onto the deck.  I started with the former and ended with the latter.  The obvious intent is to optimize the design so as to minimize the problem of broaching – when a wave overtakes a boat and can pushes it sideways and capsizes the boat.


I also wanted to make sure that the pressure from the wave on the stern was strong and focused on creating thrust for the boat.  I called this addition the pushtram.  To do this I tested several shapes for a concave design of a fold-out transom (pushtram) that extended down to the bottom of the keel.  This ended up taking the shape of a tall clam-shell that could fold together to form a rudder but when opened, it presented a 4 foot wide by 5 foot deep parabolic pushing surface to for the wave. 


The innovation on this pushtram design came when I realized that facing the concave portion of the design toward the bow instead of aft, gave it a natural stability to keep the boat pointed in the direction of the wave travel.  As the boat points further away from being perpendicular to the wave, the pushtram exerts more and more rotational torque to direct the boat back to pointing perpendicular to the wave.  This design essentially all but eliminates the danger of broaching.


The lifting of the stern and plowing of the bow is also a problem so I also installed a set of louvers that closed with upward travel and opened with downward travel of the stern in the water.  This controls the pitch fore and aft of the boat as it moves in and out of the waves.  This “pitch suppressor” stuck out aft from the lower most point of the hull for about 4 feet and was reinforced with braces to the top of the transom. 


After some experimenting, I also added a horizontal fin (foil) under the bow that was motorized to increase its lift when the rear louvers closed tightly as controlled from a computer.  This bow-foil lift was created by a design I had developed for the US Navy that uses oil pumped into heavy rubber bladders to selectively reform the lifting (airfoil) effect of the blade.  The all-electric control could change the upper and lower cambers of the foil in less than a second.  Combined with a small change in the angle of attack (to prevent cavitation), I could go from a lift coefficient of zero to more than 10.5 (using Kutta-Joukowski’s theorem).  I also used my computer modeling to optimize laminar flow and minimize the Kutta condition, keeping the drag coefficient below 0.15.


The effect of this weird underwater configuration was to allow me to control the stern to keep it perpendicular to the wave front with the yaw jets and long keel.  I then used the louvers and front foil to keep the stern down and the bow up as waves pushed the boat.  The computer controller for all this was the real innovation.


I used eight simple ultrasonic range finders that I took from parking sensors for cars and placed them on the four sides of the ship.  Four were pointing horizontal and 4 were pointing down.  The horizontal ones gave me distance to the wave, if it was visible to that sensor and the ones pointing down gave me the freeboard or height of the deck above the water line.  I also installed a wind vane and aeronometer for wind speed and relative direction. I fed all this into a computer that then used servos and relays to control the yaw jets, foil and rudder.


I had modeled the management software in a simulated ocean wave environment using a Monte Carlo analysis of the variable parameters and it took four days of running but the modeling found the optimum settings and response times for various combinations of input values. I also developed settings to allow for angles other than 90 degrees to the following waves so I could put the boat on a reach to the winds.  This placed a heavy and constant load on the yaw thrusters but I found that my boat was lightweight enough to go as much as 35 to 40 degrees left and right of perpendicular to the wave front.


At first, I kept the sail mast and kept the inboard motor of the motorsailer but after getting more confidence in the boat’s handling, I took both off.  I do keep a drop-down outboard motor for getting in and out of the harbor. 


In operation, I would use the drop down outboard to get out of the harbor and into the Gulf and facing in the direction of the wave travel.  While the outboard is still running, I open up the pushtram and lower the bow-foil and aft pitch-suppressor and bring the computer online.  The software is preprogrammed to run a quick test of the thrusters and bow-foil and gives the boat a little wiggle to let me know it is all working.  I then run the outboard up to what’s needed to get me on a wave crest and then shut it down.  Within a few waves, the boat settles into the perfect location on the wave to receive the optimum benefit of the gravity, wave motion and system settings.  The end result was a boat that travels +/- 40 degrees to the direction the wind is blowing at sustained speed up to 35 knots or more all day long without using any gas.


Waves being as inconsistent as they are, the thrusters and bow-foil and pitch-suppressors kick in every few minutes to try to correct for a change in wave or wind direction or when I drop a wave and have to pick up another.  Between the pitch-suppressor and the pushtram, it usually only takes about 2 or 3 waves to get back up to speed again.  This happens slightly more often as I deviate from the pure perpendicular direction using the thrusters but it still keeps me moving at almost the speed of the waves for about 80 to 90% of the time.


I recently tested an improvement that will get me to +/- 60 degrees to the wind’s direction so I can use the boat under a wider range of wind and wave conditions.  I found that using some redesigned shapes on the pushtram, I can achieve a stable heading that is nearly 60 degrees off the wind.  The innovation came when I mixed the use of the hydraulic reshapeable bow-foil idea on the pushtram.  By using the computer to dynamically reshape the pushtram using pumped up oil bladders controlled by the computer, I can create an asymmetric parabolic shape that also creates a stable righting force at a specific angle away from the wind.


I also recently incorporated a program that will take GPS waypoint headings and find a compromise heading between optimum wave riding and the direction I want to go.  This was not as hard as it seems since I need only get within 60 degrees either side of the wind direction.  Using the computer, I calculate an optimum tack relative to the present wind that will achieve a specific destination.  Because it is constantly taking in new data, it is also constantly updating the tack to accommodate changes in wind and wave direction.  It gives me almost complete auto-pilot control of the boat.  I even set it up with automatic geofencing so that if the system gets too far off track or the winds are not cooperating, it sounds an alarm so I can use other power sources.


I began using a 120-watt solar panel that charges the batteries with a small generator for backup.  I keep a few hours of fuel in the on-board tank for the outboard in case the waves and wind die or I need to cruise the inland waterways or intercoastal.


Once I’m in the sweet spot of the wave and traveling at a constant speed, the ride is smooth and steady. 


I have found that the power of the wave is sufficient that I could have considerable additional drag and still not change my speed or stability.  I jury-rigged a paddle-wheel generator and easily produced about 300 watts of power with no changes in my computer controller or control surface settings.  This plus the solar panels now can keep up with the usage rates for the electric thrusters on most days without depleting any of the battery reserve.


I am now working in a drop-down APU – auxiliary power unit – which will produce all the power; I need on board with enough left over to charge some large batteries.  My plan is to then use the battery bank to eliminate the need for the outboard motor and gas.   I figure I can get about 800 watts out of the APU and can feed into a bank of 12 deep cycle batteries.  When the winds are not right, I just turn the yaw thrusters to act as main propulsion and take off.  


I recently took my boat on a trip from Jacksonville Fla. (Mayport), up the coast to Nags Head and then on to Cape May, NJ.   There was an Atlantic high pressure off South Carolina that was slowly moving north so I got out in it and caught the northerly winds and waves.  The total distance was about 1,100 miles.  Being retired from the US Navy, I used the launching facilities at the Mayport Naval Station to put to sea about 8AM on a Monday morning.  I pulled into the Cape May Inlet about 7:30PM on Tues.  That was just under 30 hours of wave powered travel at an average speed of about 27 knots.  Not bad for an amateur.  The best part is that I used just over two gallons of gas and most of the trip I just let the boat steer itself.


All the modeling in the world does not hold a candle to an hour in the real world.  I observed firsthand how frequently that the waves are always parallel to the last one and how often that they don’t all go in the same direction.  I also observed groups of waves – called the long wavelength – of waves.  The effect of all that is that the boat did not ride just one wave but lost and gained waves constantly but at irregular intervals.  Sometimes I would ride a wave for as much as 20 minutes and sometimes it was 3 or 4 minutes.  A few times, I got caught in a mix-master of waves that had no focus and had to power out with the outboard.  This prompted me to speed up my plans for installing the APU and the bank of aux batteries so I can make more use of the electric powered thrusters for main propulsion so that I could add that into the computer controller to help maintain and steady the speed.


I powered around to a friend’s place off Sunset Lake in Wildwood Crest.  He had a boat barn with a lift that allowed me to pull my boat out of the water and change the inboard propeller shaft.  Earlier, I had taken the inboard engine out and the prop off last year but left the shaft.  This gave me tons of room because I also took out the oversize fuel tank. 


I salvaged one of the electric motor/generators from a crashed Prius and connected it to the existing inboard propeller shaft.  I then mounted a 21″ Solas Alcup high thrust, elephant ear propeller.  This prop is not meant for speed but it is highly efficient at medium and slow speeds.  The primary advantage of this prop is that it produces a large amount of thrust when driven at relatively slow speeds by the motor.  It also can be easily driven by water flowing past it to drive the generator.


I used a hybrid transmission that allows me to connect a high torque 14.7 HP motor-generators and converter to the propeller shaft and to a bank of 12 deep cycle batteries in a parallel-serial arrangement to give a high current 72 volt source.  This combination gives me a powerful thrust but also produces as much as a 50 amp current at RPMs that can readily be achieved while under wave power.


Now I have a powerful electric motor on the shaft and a bank of deep cycle batteries in the keel.   The motor-generator plus the solar panels and the APU easily create enough charging current to keep the batteries topped off while still giving me about 5 hours of continuous maximum speed electric power with no other energy inputs.  However, in the daytime, with the solar panels and APU working, I can extend running time to about 9 hours.  If I have wave powered travel for more 6 hours out of every 24, I can run nearly non-stop.


 I am now working on a refined controller for all these changes.  The plan is to have the motor kick on if the speed drops below a preset limit.  The computer will also compute things like how fast and how far I can travel under electric power using only the batteries, solar panels, APU and motor-generator in various combinations.  I’ll also be adding a vertical axis wind turbine that I just bought.  It produces nearly 1 kW and is only 9 feet tall and 30″ in diameter.  For under $5,000, it will be mounted where the sail mast use to be but it will be on a dampened gimbal that will maintain it in an upright vertical position while the boat goes up and down the waves.  By my calculations, on a sunny day with a 10 knot wind, I should be able to power the electric drive all day long without tapping the batteries at all.


These changes will be made by mid-July 2010 and then I am reasonably confident that I can travel most any direction, day or night, for a virtually unlimited distance.


My next trip was planned for hugging the coastline from Cape May south to Key West – then around the Gulf down to the Panama Canal – thru to the Pacific and up the coast to San Francisco.  An investor there has challenged me that if can make that trip; he will buy my boat for $1.5M and will build me a much larger version – a Moorings 4600 using a catamaran GRP hull.  Using a catamaran hull should boost the efficient of the wave drive to almost perfection. 


This trip was all set and then BP has to go a screw it up.  I figure I’ll make the trip in 2011.

The Fuel you have never heard of….


I have always been fascinated by the stories of people that have invented some fantastic fuel only to have the major oil companies suppress the invention by buying the patent or even killing the inventor.  The fascination comes from the fact that I have heard these stories all my life but have never seen any product that might have been invented by such a person.  That proves that the oil companies have been successful at suppressing the inventors….or it proves that such stories are simply lies.  Using Plato – my research software tool, I thought I would give it a try.  The results were far beyond anything I could have imagined.  I think you will agree.


I set Plato to the task of finding what might be changed in the fuel of internal combustion engines that might produce higher miles per gallon (MPG).  It really didn’t take long to return a conclusion that if the burned fuel had more energy in the burning, it would give better MPG for the same quantity of fuel.  It further discovered that if the explosion of the fuel releases its energy in a shorter period of time, it works better but it warned that the engine timing becomes very critical.


OK so, what I need is a fuel or a fuel additive that will make the spark plug ignite a more powerful but faster explosion within the engine.  I let Plato work on that problem for a weekend and it came up with Nitroglycerin (Nitro).  It turns out that Nitro actually works precisely because its explosion is so fast.  It also is a good chemical additive because it is made of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon so it burns without smoke and releases only those elements or compounds into the air. 


Before I had a chance to worry about the sensitive nature of Nitro, Plato provided me with the answer to that also.  It seems that ethanol or acetone will desensitize Nitro to workable safety levels.  I used Plato to find the formulas and safe production methods of Nitro and decided to give it a try.


Making Nitro is not hard but it is scary.  I decided to play it safe and made my mixing lab inside of a large walk-in freezer.  I only needed to keep it below 50F and above 40F so the freezer was actually off most of the time and it stayed cool from the ice blocks in the room.  The cold makes the Nitro much less sensitive but only if you don’t allow it to freeze.  If you do that, it can go off just as a result of thawing out.  My plan was to make a lot of small batches to keep it safe until I realized that even if very small amounts, it was enough to blow me up if it ever went off.  So I just made up much larger batches and ended up with about two gallons.


I got three gas engines – a lawn mower, a motorcycle and an old VW Bug.  I got some gas of 87 octane but with 10% ethanol in it.  I also bought some pure ethanol additive and put that in the mix.  I then added the Nitro.  The obvious first problem was to determine how much to add.  I decided to err of the side of caution and began with very dilute mixtures – one part Nitro into 300 parts gas.   I made-up just 100 ml of the mixture and tried it on the lawn mower.  It promptly blew up.  Not actually exploded but the mixture was so hot and powerful that it burned a hole in the top of the cylinder and broke the crankshaft and burned off the valves.  That took less than a minute of running.


I then tried a 600:1 ratio in the motorcycle engine and it ran for 9 minutes on the 100 ml.  It didn’t burn up but I could tell very little else about the effects of the Nitro.  It tried it again with 200 ml and determined that it was running very hot and probably would have blown a ring or head gasket if I tried it for any longer.  I had removed the motorcycle engine from an old motorcycle to make this experiment but now I regretted that move.  I had no means to check torque or power.  The VW engine was still in the Bug so I could actually drive it.  This opened up all kinds of possibilities.


I gas it up and drove it with normal gas first.  I tried going up and down hills, accelerations, high speed runs and pulling a chain attached to a tree.  At only 1,400 cc, it was rated at only 40 HP when it was in new condition but now it had much less than that using normal gas.


I had a Holly carb on the engine and tweaked it to a very lean mixture and lowered the Nitro ratio to 1,200 to 1.   I had gauges for oil temp and pressure and had vacuum and fuel flow sensors to help monitor real-time MPG.  It ran great and outperformed all of the gas-only driving tests.  At this point I knew I was onto something but my equipment was just too crude to do any serious testing.  I used my network of contacts in the R&D community and managed to find some guys at the Army vehicle test center at the Aberdeen Test center (ATC).  A friend of a friend put me in contact with the Land Vehicle Test Facility (LVTF) within the Automotive Directorate where they had access to all kinds of fancy test equipment and tons of reference data.  I presented my ideas and results so far and they decided to help me using “Special Projects” funds.  I left them with my data and they said come back in a week.


A week later, I showed up at the LVTF.  They said welcome to my new test vehicle – a 1998 Toyota Corona.  It is one of the few direct injection engines with a very versatile air-fuel control system.  They had already rebuilt the engine using ceramic-alloy tops to the cylinder heads that gave them much greater temperature tolerance and increased the compression ratio to 20:1.  This is really high but they said that my data supported it.  Their ceramic-alloy cylinder tops actually form the combustion chamber and create a powerful vortex swirl for the injected ultra-lean mixture gases.


We stared out with the 1,200:1 Nitro ratio I had used and they ran the Corona engine on a dynometer to test and measure torque (ft/lbs) and power (HP).  The test pushed the performance almost off the charts.  We repeated the tests with dozens of mixtures, ratios, air-fuel mixes and additives.  The end results were amazing.


After a week of testing, we found that I could maintain a higher than normal performance using a 127:1 air fuel ration and a 2,500:1 Nitro to gas ratio if the ethanol blend is boosted to 20%.  The mixture was impossible to detonate without the compression and spark of the engine so the Nitro formula was completely safe.  The exhaust gases were almost totally gone – even the Nox emissions were so low that a catalytic converter was not needed.  Hydrocarbon exhaust was down in the range of a Hybrid.  The usual problem of slow burn in ultra-lean mixtures was gone so the engine produced improved power well up into high RPMs and the whole engine ran at lower temperatures for the same RPM across all speeds.  The real thrill came when we repeatedly measured MPG values in the 120 to 140 range.


The rapid release and fast burn of the Nitro allowed the engine to run an ultra-lean mixture that gave it great mileage while not having any of the usual limitations of lean mixtures.  At richer mixtures, the power and performance was well in excess of what you’d expect of this engine.  It would take a major redesign to make an engine strong enough to withstand the torque and speeds possible with this fuel in a normal 14:1 air-fuel mixture.  Using my mix ratio of 120+:1 gave me slightly improved performance but at better than 140 MPG.  It worked.  Now I am waiting for the buyout or threats from the gas companies.


July 2010 Update:


The guys at ATC/LVTF contacted my old buddies at DARPA and some other tests were performed.  The guys at DARPA have a test engine that allows them to inject high energy microwaves into the combustion chamber just before ignition and just barely past TDC.  When the Nitro ratio was lowered to 90:1, the result was a 27 fold increase in released energy.  We were subsequently able to reduce the quantity of fuel used to a level that created the equivalent of 394 miles per gallon in a 2,600 cc 4-cyl engine.  The test engine ran for 4 days at a speed and torque load equal to 50 miles per hour – and did that on 10 gallons of gas – a test equivalent of just less than 4,000 miles!  A new H-2 Hummer was rigged with one of these engines and the crew took it for a spin – from Calif. To Maine – on just over 14 gallons of gas.  They are on their way back now by way of northern Canada and are trying to get 6,000 miles on less than 16 gallons.


The government R&D folks have pretty much taken over my project and testing but I have been assured that I will be both compensated and protected.  I hope Obama is listening.

A REAL Fountain of Youth?

Last April, I was given my annual physical by my family doctor.  It was the usual turn-your-head-and-cough kind of checkup that included a series of blood tests.  Partly due to my work history and partly because I am aware of the benefits of a number of rather obscure tests, I pay for several extra tests that are not normally included in the average annual physical.  I get the usual cholesterol, thyroid, iron, prostate, albumen, etc but I also get some others, these extra tests include:  CBC, RBC, Hematocrit, WBC, DIFF, MCV, Hemoglobin, BPC, ABO and about two dozen others.

The ABO test determines you blood type and the level of antigens and antibodies present on the surface of the red blood cells.  This is not something that usually changes but it can point to early signs of any hemolytic or autoimmune diseases or the presence of toxins such as radiation exposure.  I have been Type “O” with Anti-A and Anti-B antibodies with no antigens for as long as I have been tested.  That is the very definition of the Type “O” blood group.  That is until this last time I was tested. 

I have always been O-negative but this last test showed I was now O-Positive.  Somehow, I had acquired the “D” antigen of the Rhesus factor.  This is not impossible but it usually results from a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant and occurs over a long period of time.   It was also discovered that I had both A and B antigens that is only present in blood type AB.  This kind of change has not been observed before and after a delay of several weeks, I was called back for more testing.  It seems that I am somewhat of a medical mystery.

In the course of the testing, my entire medical history was examined and they found that despite my advanced age, I have a number of anomalous readings that are uncommon for my age.  My nerve reaction time is that of a 40 year old.  My heart, skin, muscle contraction and brain wave activity are all that of a 40 year old man or even younger.  Then they dumped me into a ton of other tests and drew blood and took tissue samples for a week.  These extra tests showed that the epithelial transport of nutrients and ions, T-cell activation, pancreatic beta-cell insulin release, and synaptic conduction were all abnormally high for a man of my age.  I had never particularly noticed but it was discovered that in the past 15 years or so, I have not had a cold or flu or allergy response or any other typical disease or negative environmental response. 

All this has baffled my doctors and although some tests are still going on and two research clinics are still interested, most have simply marked it off as a medical anomaly and moved on.  I, however, was very curious and wanted to know more so I broke down the problem into parts and fed it into Plato – my automated research tool – for an in-depth analysis.  The results were amazing and have some far reaching implications.  I want to tell you about what Plato found but I have to start with a lot of background and history so that you will understand how it all fits together and how Plato figured it out.

I have always been fascinated by high voltage electricity.  In science fairs, I built tesla coils and Van de Graff generators and played with Jacob’s Ladders and Wimshurst generators.  In college, I participated in research studies of lightning and worked on high energy physics as well as other fringe science related to high power electromagnetic energy.  When I got into computer simulation, I was asked to create and run simulations on the first MHD generator, the first rail gun and the first ion engine.  I also worked on computer models for a cyclotron and a massive hydroelectric system that work on waves and ocean currents. 

As a hobbyist, I liked the idea of incorporating some of this stuff into my everyday life.  Way back in the 1960’s, I created a scaled down model of an ion engine at about the time that NASA was planning to use on interplanetary vehicles.  (It appears in Science Illustrated and I made a DYI model like the one in the magazine).  It was, essentially, a negative ion generator with an extra set of acceleration plates.  Because it made no noise and used a tiny amount of electricity, I have had that first model plugged in and “running” in my home since 1967.  It actually creates moving air with no moving parts which looks really neat.

When some biologists discovered that negative ions have a beneficial effect on breathing and air quality, I made one and tried it out for a few months.  I liked it and decided if one is good then a dozen must be even better.  I made a total of 29 of them – incorporating them into fans, lamp shades, ceiling fixtures, heating and AC vents and other hidden and novel locations all around the home.  Most of these have been running since the mid 70’s in my home, office and workshops.

In the early 1990’s, it was discovered that negative ions that are bubbled up thru water have some fascinating effects on the water.  The ions destroy virtually 100% of all the germs, viruses and bacteria in the water – making it the cleanest water you can drink.  These negative ion bubbles also purify the water like no filter could ever do.  It causes metals and chemicals to dissolve and pass out of the water as gas or they solidify and fall out of the water as a precipitant that falls to the bottom of the container.  These clumps solidified metals and toxins can easily be filtered out with the cheapest paper water filter.  If the water is canted, it leaves this sludge behind.  The end results in the cleanest, purest water on earth.  But wait, there is more.  The high ion quality of the cleaned water can also be used to clean other things.  If you wash fresh fruits and vegetables in this ion water, it cleans them of all bacteria and toxic chemicals within a matter of minutes. 

It turns out that drinking this water is also good for you.  The at first I did not know why but if you think about it, your body system runs on electricity in nerves and brain activity and adding a few extra electrons to that operation has got to help.

After reading all about this, I built a device that taps into my kitchen faucet water and diverts some of the water to a 10 gallon holding tank that is hidden under the cabinet.  When it is full, it gets 6 hours of treatment from a series of aerators that bubble up negative ion air thru the water.  After 6 hours, the water is pumped into a second sealed stainless steel tank that is mounted on top of the upper most kitchen cabinets.  From there, it gravity feeds thru a line to a small spigot near my sink that allows me to use the water to wash, drink or clean with.  I built one of these back in 1995 and liked it so much that in 2001, I built four more for use in the bathrooms, office and workshop.  I have been using them ever since.

The net result of these electronic hobby projects and my fascination with electricity and ions is that for the past 35 years, I have been breathing, drinking and living in an ion-rich environment.  And specifically a negative ion rich environment – one in which there is an over-abundance of electrons, making the ions have a negative charge. 

Plato found that this was the central factor to my changed blood chemistry and other bio-system anomalies.  When I asked Plato to trace the basis of its premise, I got back pages and pages of links to leading edge biological and chemical research that took me days to read and collate into a hypothesis.  Here is the gist of it.

The presence of a negative ion-saturated environment has, over the past three decades, slightly altered my body chemistry and specifically those chemical reactions that are enhanced, caused by or results from electro-chemical reactions.  Apparently, one of the first to respond was the near elimination of free radicals from my system.  Although radicals can be positive, negative or zero charge, it appears that the nature of the unpaired electrons that create radicals is affected by the presence of an excessive amount of extra electrons.  My assumption is that the negative ions in my environment supplied the missing electrons to the unpaired electrons of the free radicals and thus neutralized them or keeping them from pairing with the wrong chemicals. 

Some of the findings that Plato referred me to discussed the electron spin resonance and described how the transient chemical properties of the radicals are counter-balanced by the electron ionization because of their de Broglie wavelength which matches the length of the typical bonds in organic molecules and atoms and the energy transfer to the organic analyte molecules is maximized.  I’m not a chemist and that is pretty deep stuff but the net result is the radical ion is negated.  Since the absence or reduction of free radicals has been proven to be highly beneficial in the reduction or prevention of degenerative diseases and cancers, the accidental result that I have achieved with my rich ion environment has been a major contribution to my good health.

The other major finding that Plato provided was concerning a vast but little understood area of bio-chemistry called ion channels.  Ion channels are essentially electrochemical paths on the plasma membrane of biological cells that allows the cells to control their interaction with other cells, chemicals and proteins.  In effect, these ion channels are the mechanism by which biological cells interact with the cells, chemicals and molecules around them.  You could imagine these channels as electrically powered communications devices.  If they are in good working order and properly charged, then the cell does what it is suppose to do.  If the channels become weak, then the cell has a greater susceptibility to damage or to be compromised by the wrong connection with other substances, cells or viruses.

Part of how this ion channel works is by creating a gated voltage gradient across the cell membrane.  This voltage gradient underlies the voltage activated channels and plays a critical role in a wide variety of biological processes related to nerve, synaptic, muscle and cell interactions.  If the ion channel is strong then the voltage gradient is strong and the cell functions in an optimal manner.  If the ion channel is weak, then the voltage gradient is weak and the cell is subject to a variety of interference and inefficiencies in its functioning.

Plato found numerous other supporting aspects of this interaction in the form of ionotropic receptors of ligand molecules and ion flux across the plasma membranes that also benefit from a strong ionic environment.  There are also the 13 chloride channels and other transmembrane helices that function in this ion induced voltage gradient environment. 

What Plato postulated is that the ion-rich environment I have been living in for the past 35 years has created an excessively powerful voltage gradient on these ion channels – making the channels function not only in an optimum manner but making them extremely difficult to block.  I am not willing to test it, but Plato has speculated that I may be immune to a long list of toxins, chemicals, genetic disorders and diseases that disrupt the normal functioning of ion channels.  As a result, I am, apparently immune to the puffer fish toxin, the saxitoxin from “red tide”, the bite of black mamba snakes, and diseases like cystic fibrosis, Brugada syndrome, epilepsy, hyperkalaemic paralysis, and dozens, perhaps hundreds of others.

I find this all fascinating and very appealing because it means that I may be around for a lot longer than I had thought I would.  I seem to be in excellent health and have not experienced any decrease in mental activity – in fact, I often think I can do things now that I could not do when I was 40 but I have always just attributed that to experience, age and a lifetime of accumulated wisdom.  Now it appears that it may have been because I started messing around with negative ion generators back when I was in my 30’s and have, quite by accident, created a sort of fountain of youth in the air and water of my house.