Maximum Potential “Power of the Ether”

Maximum Potential “Power of the Ether” (AMS) — what we can say without handwaving

1) There are at least three different meanings of “maximum power”

A) Maximum power density the substrate can deliver through a region (W/m³).
B) Maximum extractable power in a practical device (engineering limit).
C) Maximum stable power before the substrate or matter coupling catastrophically reconfigures (breakdown).

Here we cover B and C.

2) In AMS terms, the limiter is “how hard you can bias the substrate” before breakdown

If you crank spatial tension gradients too high:

  • insulators ionize,
  • matter lattices rupture,
  • plasma channels form,
  • the system finds a low-resistance path and dumps tension violently.

That is electrical breakdown / arcing.
So practical extraction is limited by:

  • maximum sustainable AMS gradient without uncontrolled channel formation,
  • and the geometry/materials used to steer reconfiguration.

3) The “ceiling” in practice looks like known breakdown regimes

Even in conventional terms:

  • every medium has a breakdown field,
  • every conductor has current density limits (heating, electromigration),
  • every geometry has corona/arcing thresholds.

In AMS terms:

  • these are limits on stable, steerable micro-slip without runaway reconfiguration.

4) A conservative takeaway

The AMS may be “immense,” but what you can induce is gated by:

  • coupling efficiency to matter knots,
  • and how close you can run to catastrophic reconfiguration without losing control.

So the deep question becomes:

  • can we discover geometries that couple strongly to the substrate while remaining stable?
    Resonant structures (Tesla-style) are one plausible route in this ontology.

5) What would “really big” AMS extraction look like?

It would look like:

  • ultra-high gradient control without breakdown,
  • very high-Q torsion resonators,
  • controlled channel formation (plasma as a tool, not a failure),
  • and materials that can survive intense micro-torsion without chaotic collapse.

But any claim beyond this needs concrete experiments and numbers.

6) A good next step scientifically

Define measurable proxies in this model:

  • “maximum stable gradient” before runaway,
  • “torsion Q-factor” of a structure,
  • “micro-slip rate ceiling” before heat dominates,
  • “coherence retention” of reconfiguration (clean vs noisy power).

These are testable.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology — v0.8

AMS Ontology v0.8 — Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (Self-referencing, structured, and vocabulary-sealed. Uses “first/second heavens” for runtime reality and “third heaven” for creation-level domain. Avoids “universe”.) 0. Purpose and Reader Contract This document defines the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) as a unified ontological framework for runtime physical reality: matter, fields, energy, waves, circuits, and life-as-process. It is written to be: Self-referencing: terms are defined once and referenced consistently. Layered: it distinguishes creation-level constraint (T0) from runtime topology (T1/T2). Guardrailed: it forbids category errors (especially “order ⇒ agency” and “organisation ⇒ new energy”). This ontology does not attempt to model: ensoulment, spiritual state change, or personhood instantiation divine agency, the Holy Spirit, or theological mechanisms creation-level acts beyond their runtime implications (Those topics can be acknowledged in appendice...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more