Molina Martinez patent

[HopeForHumanity]

LOL, another guy! No offense, but this guy has not posted in a while on this tech...

[Alberto Molina M.]

Hello everyone,

I?m sorry for my prolonged absence. I apologize to all.

The true nature of photons might still be unknown. They don?t easily collide, but under the proper circumstances they do collide releasing formidable amounts of energy. 

The amounts of energy measured in particles accelerators for collision of photons exceed by far that of any other particles collisions. And it exceeds by far the amount of energy of the collided photons themselves, as we know them.   

Where does that energy come from? It doesn?t come for sure from the acceleration of the photons, since photons travel spontaneously at the speed of light. So, where does it come from? We just don?t know, but we know now that it is there.

What the device I designed for the collision of photons intends to do, is to increase the concentration of photons to an unthinkable limit where there is no more physical space for more photons, all traveling at the speed of light in all directions. At this hypothetical limit, photons will have no other choice but to collide with other photons crossing in their paths, until the equilibrium point is reached between the creation of new photons and their disintegration by collisions.

In many aspects, the Photonic Reactor at the center of the Antimatter Electrical Generator is like a laser system. It stimulates the creation of photons in similar ways; this is, by striking the lasing medium atoms with light or other means, but not allowing the photons to escape the chamber.

These photons, in turn, will excite more atoms, and more photons will be released, causing a population inversion. As more photons form, and more atoms get excited just to release more photons, with no stop to the process, the photon density will start to mount up at higher and higher rates.

It is very probable, but I don?t see it as a condition for the practical operation of the generator that at certain point of photon saturation the system will sustain itself, this is, the disintegration process will continue without the participation of an external source of energy, transforming into an auto-disintegrative process.

The reason why I believe this could happen is because there will be so much light inside the chamber at some point that no system could add any significant amount of light to the chamber. It would be like trying to illuminate the sun with a flash light.

Collided photons disintegrate into a variety of subatomic charged particles and antiparticles, matter and antimatter. These subatomic particles and antiparticles can not be stopped by mirrors, for which they will abandon the photonic collider through its walls.   

The energy released by the collision of photons can eventually be harnessed in different ways. I?m proposing at least two: One that converts the energy of these charges particles and antiparticles directly into electricity; and another that utilizes the particles and antiparticles themselves as antimatter fuel. 

The first is based on the fact that the striking of a charged particle with atoms at rest will cause ion pairs dissociations, this is, the creation of electrons and positrons, which under the proper circumstances will create avalanche multiplications. The system will separate the ion pairs by charge producing a high electrical potential or voltage on the terminals of specialized collecting masses.

The second will use the controlled reunification of matter and antimatter particles as propellant for high thrust engines as spacecraft or mega-generators. 


All the descriptions in my published patent applications and in my website http://www.givetheplanetachance.com/ are still theoretical developments. If at some point I?m able to prove or disprove these theories I promise to let you know.

There is a new document in the website called ?A Solution to the Energy Crisis and Global Warming?, which reviews all aspects of the project. I hope somebody will listen from somewhere.

I promise to be more attentive to the forum.



Alberto Molina-Martinez

[HopeForHumanity]

Hey, Your back! I remmeber reading somewhere that mathematicaly when two photons are forced to collide, the energy stored is released as virtual anti and regular particles. So i understand what is going on with that. But are you saying that these particles could release real energy. It seems all the no coe violation people keep saying the energy isn't released because there virtual.

[pauldude000]

@Hopeforhumanity

Do not get caught up in the "virtual" horsepucky. Just some advice. Generally, science and scientists are still as dogmatic as they have ever been. To many, it has become a religion in it's own right by definition.

Early on, men like Pythagorus quite literally worshiped mathematics, thinking he had derived a "holy" mathematical principle. This is information you can find with a little digging. The roots haven't changed much it seems.

Why am I saying these things? How is any of this relevant? Good questions, with a good answer.

Men today, claiming to be rational and strictly scientific men, still today tend to disregard data if it doesn't fit their own preconceived notions.  They rely on these notions based solely upon faith (belief). Where and what is the difference? 

Take for instance "virtual" particles, or for the sake of discussion, "virtual" anything. There is NOTHING "Virtual", imaginary,  or in any manner "unreal" about ANY particle, its interactions or effects. (Virtual particles, mass, energy, etc. etc. etc. )

It is a true example of the failure of logical thought in modern science. This will be a two parter.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

Part 2

(First, let me state that I emphasize words as I would when speaking.)

Ok, in the previous post I made some grand statements, raised some hackles,, and now need to provide a basis for them.

Let me use one of the common notions. A photon having "virtual" or "apparent" mass. WHY would they state it as virtual or apparent, and not actual mass? The answer is simple. It does not fit established theory, specifically the theory of relativity. It "cant" have this property, so therefore the property it shows must not be actual.

Perhaps I should emphasize this: the theory of relativity, not the law of relativity. Make a distinction between the two statements. A theory is an unproven or unprovable statement which does not necessarily work in all applications, a law has been demonstrated to apply with continuance in consistency.

It is a principle IN science that either "laws" or "theories" may well be false, and that they should be adaptable to new data.

Amazingly enough, this is not now, nor to my research into the historical precedences, has it ever been truly applied.

New ideas still get rejected unless they fall into a philosophical fad. Old untruths still get promoted. Think "earth being the center of the universe", or the "flat earth" theories, and you get a clear understanding of what it means and how it applies.

They may not actually KILL you for your scientific heresies today, they merely try their hardest to make you a laughingstock, or ruin your career. Same indifference as far as I am concerned, and is the exact same approach which is demonstrated throughout most religions.

Now, applying all of this to the "virtual" problem. The term virtual is applied when something demonstrable is in logical opposition to established theory.

Note, this virtual thing DEMONSTRATES OR SHOWS this aspect, which it cannot have or be, solely because a theory says otherwise.

This logical approach has a term.

It is called making the facts fit the theories, and not the theories fit the facts. It is also called pure hypocrisy.

That is why I no longer follow physics, when I used to be quite deep. If they are not after logical truth, I value it as worthless to me. The theories MUST fit the facts, not vice-versa.

You do not want to know how much of the branch of physics called "theoretical physics" (the theory mill of physics) is pure philosophy. That is where the cool stuff like relativity came from. That was my chosen branch.


Paul Andrulis