1

Technology / Is this "Ultra deep hydroelectric/geothermal power plant" the future?

« on: 16/10/2016 04:59:33 »

Hi all together,
I am taking the liberty to present you my newest invention.
"Ultra deep hydroelectric/geothermal power plant"
https://hardballsite.wordpress.com/

ABSTRACT

This invention consists mainly of a long sloped tunnel, a deep hydroelectric/geothermal power plant and hot rocks transforming water into steam. Advanced tunnelling machines are able to reach lengths and depths never possible before with the old drilling method.
The drop height of the water for the hydroelectric power plan is for instance over 10 km and the gained water pressure over 1000bar feeding special high pressure water turbines or big hydraulic water motors driving again generators. After passing the water turbines the water is pressed with a rest pressure of about 250bar into hot rocks generating high pressure overheated steam for steam turbines in a range of gig watts. Then the steam rises up in the sloped tunnel as in a chimney, cools down, condensate to water and starts the entire process again. That’s all.
This circulation for generating electrical energy deep under ground is sustainable, even during an ice age with a minimum of human intervention. It is most environmentally friendly and can be build in any country making them more independent from oil.

Referring to FIG 1, there is shown a schematic cross section of the entire creation, but the drawing is not true to scale.
There is a 50 km long tunnel 1 like the Gotthard tunnel, but with a slope of 30°.
At a maximal deepness of about 20 km – depending on the local temperature – is a power plant with many turbines in horizontal tunnels 2 and 3. Even deeper is a smaller branch 4 of the main tunnel made by remote controlled tunnel machines. The region 13 of the pores hot rocks is un-cooled over 800° C , but will get cooler if pressure water is injected through the pipe 14 and an array of nozzles 9. The hot pressurized steam is collected in the lower portion of the tunnels 1 and 4. A heavy cover 19 separates the hot steam from the rest of the tunnels. Water will fill up a portion of the tunnel over the cover. This helps to lock the cover down against hot steam of about 200bar pressure. At a thickness of 2 km water would be a balance. There is a pipe connecting both deep sees for spill over. All 3 water bodies have the same level. To lower the water level there is an extra pump 24 to press the water into the hot pressurized region back in the circulation. This pump runs only if needed. The condense water from above has enough pressure to penetrate the hot rocks even with the detour over the water turbines 8.
The power plant can go on generating electricity only with the water in the own deep sees. If the condensation in the long tunnel is complete, no water from above is necessary any more.
The process is very simple. Firstly clean water from a river 6 is getting through a screen 5 and runs without any pump through an about 50 km long pipe 7 gaining gravitational pressure of about 2000bar at a deepness of 20 km feeding the high pressure water turbines 8 or water hydraulic motors (Wolfhart Principle). With a rest pressure of about 250bar the water is running through the pipe 14 and is injected with nozzles 9 into hot rocks 13 where the water is changed into steam and collected under the cover 19. A pipe 18 feeds the steam turbines 12 with about 170bar at 580° C - each generating about 250 MW electricity like the SST900 from Siemens. They are 11 m wide and fit in the tunnels. They drive down on a rack railway very slowly. Good brakes are essential, otherwise the heavy load will run down in the hot rocks and never seen again.
The workers or intranauts respectively must work in the beginning under 2bar pressure and in a hot environment. They look like astronauts in their cooling suits. They must be brought slowly back to the surface like divers from a 20 m water depth or they stay in the deep “hotels” for days. There are cooled areas with normal pressure in the horizontal tunnels, but there will be a steamy and wet ride back home on the rack trail in cabins. To stop the steam production would mean to shut down the steam turbines. Therefore, a second tunnel could be made or one tunnel will be divided in sections for water, steam and people.
After passing the steam turbines the steam rises up in the tunnel and cools down. At last it will condense in a heat exchange system 10 close under the surface of the earth 11. The condense water will be collected and runs down again a long pipe and feeds first the water turbines again and then it is changed into steam again. In the best-case scenario no water from the river is necessary any more. It is a closed sustainable circulation as in nature. The deep tunnel has it’s own weather system. There are no big pumps necessary.
Not 100% of the water can be recaptured under the heat exchanger 10, but in different heights other water collecting stations can be installed. For instance the water from a 10 km height runs down in an extra pipe and enters an extra turbine still running with 1000bar instead with 2000bar static pressure.
The air pressure down there is about 2bar – like in a tire of a car or 20 Meter under Water. Therefore, strong hermetic doors 17 close the horizontal tunnels up. There is only a small tunnel connecting both for the intranauts going around the sloped tunnel. It could be made also only one horizontal tunnel, but 2 are better for redundancy.  A comfortable climate is made behind these doors. Temperature and pressure are lowered. The electrical power cables are placed inside the cool water pipes for cooling purposes in the hot regions. All walls are cooled by fresh water in pipes 16 from above. A small see 15 holds fluctuations in temperature down. There is even a kind of hotel “Deep View” 20 for intranauts – contrary to astronauts - with a view of the bright illuminated small see and another “hotel” called “hot rock” 21. It is also a shelter for the workers in an emergency with all live supporting things. It can be extra hermetic closed. For redundancy every important installation is doubled. In time most work is done by robots or remotely.
If the tunnelling machine is driven by water hydraulic motors and everything is totally water-cooled it can drill in hot layers – even under water. The tunnelling machines 22 and 23 remain on the grounds of the tunnels and go further if needed and still running.
The predictions are made after about 100 years experience with this technology. It will work already at much lower deepness, but not that efficient.
The simplest way would be to let the water run down permanently and let the steam come up to the power station on the surface of the earth as it is done in smaller versions without tunnelling. Some heat loss will occur for the steam in the wide long tunnel. For injecting the water in the hot rocks there is no water pump necessary, because the tunnel brings the low air pressure to the rocks below. There is building up a low-pressure zone in the rocks surrounding the tunnel or shaft.

2

Technology / Why is there no institution on earth preventing loss of scientific knowledge?

« on: 23/04/2013 16:40:35 »

We would be at least 1000 years further if there would be no great losses of scientific knowledge mostly due to wars, cold wars, political reasons, supressions etc.
(Did you know for instance that the SSD/STASI had an entire division for destroying scientific knowledge together with the scientists itself?)
We loose right now a lot of scientific knowledge – and nobody cares.
Now we have the internet and could storage the knowledge from every human on this earth, but nobody is doing this. (Homepages disappear with the owner.)

3

New Theories / Theory for cause of metastable state - Establishing causality in nature again -

« on: 23/04/2013 15:59:22 »

Theory for cause of metastable state
- Establishing causality in nature again -

by Physicist Wolfhart Willimczik
E-mail : Wolfhart@tampabay.rr.com

Abstract   : Searching for the cause of the existence of metastable states the author offers a first hypothesis: Nature will not start any process basically ready to start, but with several exact equal ways to go until one way distinguishes itself from all others by a noticeable value.
An electron in an exited state, what has basically the freedom to choose any direction and any time of emitting light, will not do it by "chance", but only if a specific time and direction is given; for instance by a collision with another atom coming from a certain direction by thermal movement in a gas.
 

Keywords :   Metastability; Causality; Probability; chance; Einstein; new law of physics; spark chamber; light emission; decay, excited electron; radioactive decay; boiling water; Astroparticle physics; Nuclear reactions; Sun:
particle emission; neutrinos; radioactive decay





1. Introduction
Since about 100 years lingers the question of causality in nature over the physical society: Is there always a reason if something happens in nature or may something happen simply by chance as claimed at the radioactive decay?
No solutions reported in the literature can be found.
This is the first attempt to solve this problem establishing causality in nature again as Einstein demanded this.
2.  The problem
About 100 years ago several physicists - including Albert Einstein - created the Quantum mechanic. But nobody could explain why a single exited electron emit light just this time and just in a specific direction. Calculations are only exact for a great number of atoms. The term "probability" was introduced by dropping causality. Einstein had a problem with it, because it is unthinkable that something happens in nature without any reason.
Einstein believed an Electron has no own will to decide when to emit a light quanta and in
what direction. "The thing about causality plagues me very much, " Einstein wrote Max Born in 1920. [1] 
Einstein was not ready abandoning continuity and causality in nature.
Niels Bohr was also against Einstein’s opinion and countered to him, “ abandoning strict causality was the only way open." Einstein lamented, "but if all this is true then it means the end of physics." [2] 

In spite of all the progress in physics this problem has not been solved in the last 100 years. I think the leap from: "We are unable to determine or to calculate when a single atom will emit a photon and in what direction" to the conclusion: "This happens only by chance" is wrong.
Our lack of knowledge about a possible reason for a phenomenon is never a proof that there is non. Instead of saying it happens by chance we have to say "We don't know yet."
Ergo - we have to search for a reason:
According to the law an exited electron must give up the surplus energy by emitting light and falling back in the stable orbit of lower energy. But observations show it will often not happen in time. Single atoms left alone in quasi empty space have often very long durations of metastable states. They live without any influence from the outside. The reason is unknown. This phenomenon is called "metastable state".
If we would know the reason for the existence of metastable states we would be able to determine why a single electron emits light in a specific time and direction namely in the moment of discontinuation of the reason for the metastable state. We would find the reason while light is emitted just in this time and in this specific direction.


3. Observation of metastable state and light emission
I observed metastable states in the lab in a special spark chamber with inner light amplification. I observed that the metastable state ended always, if the atom hit another one by the thermal movement in the gas. (The number of collisions can be manipulated by temperature and pressure of the gas.) It seems an exited electron waited of a signal from another atom to emit light, but why?
The electrons of a gas has been exited by a low energy alpha particle. The light of the electrons has been amplified by an inner light amplification and the emitted light was measured by an SEV (secondary electron amplifier). This signal triggered high voltage sparks between both transparent walls of the chamber along the light and ionization sources and a picture of the track of a single alpha particle could be made. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show such pictures. The difference between them is a time delay of 600 ns.
(While most physicist smash particles with highest energy possible this experiment is on the other end of this scale – to obtain a picture of a track from a single lowest energetic particle possible. The problem is they are unable to penetrate an even very thin wall of any counter. The source of alpha radiation must be put directly in the spark chamber and a special trigger mechanism must be found. A detailed description is in:  http://www.wolfhartindustries.com/band1/kernphys.htm


This picture of Fig. 2 is taken a "long time" after the alpha particle flew across the chamber. (600 ns are a long time for the atomic time scale and nothing should be found from a passing particle 600 ns before.) Nevertheless there are some light emissions indicating the track of the alpha particle even better. It seems some atoms remember where the track of the alpha particle has been, which can only be explained with the existence of metastabile states. There was a clear connection between the duration of the metastable states and the frequency of occurrence of collisions between the atoms in the chamber. The less the pressure in the chamber, the less the collisions between the atoms, the longer the metastable states exist.
The big question is: Why are the electrons not able to emit light right away?
A possible answer: they have an entirely free parameter, the direction of emitting light and they are not able to decide by itself in what direction they should emit.  They have not a free will, as Einstein said.
Only if the specific atom gets hit by another one from a certain direction the electrons are free from making a decision by itself and is able to emit the light with the now given information from the outside. It seems nature is waiting of an information which way to go, if there are a number of exact homogeneous ways to go in time and space (for instance the direction in space).

4. Formulating a new law in physics
With this knowledge a new law in physics can be postulated.
Metastable state (Old definition): A metastable state defines a halted process which according to our knowledge should start. (An electron remains longer in an exited state as expected.)


New definition: A physical system in a metastable state remains in it as long as not a particular value of an arbitrary parameter is determined from outside.
As soon as any singular parameter distinguishes himself from all others the process will start with these input (information) from the outside.
(Nature has no free will to decide which way to go between total equal ways. Nature is waiting of information. “God doesn’t play dice” as Einstein said.)

5. Test of this new hypothesis:
If this is right it should be true not only in the quantum mechanic, but in the entire nature. And there will be also practical applications, for instance a possible avoidance of devastating tornados etc. (Einstein would be happy for these opportunity to establish causality in nature again.)


5.1 Water:
Cocking clean water in a clean container in labs lead sometimes to an metastable state, that overheated water will not boil, because any point on the bottom has the same chance to create the first steam bubble. There is no singularity. This is a free choose able parameter for the first bubble. Chemist solve this problem simply by putting a small stone on the bottom. Now exist a singularity - a point on the bottom, what distinguishes itself from all other spots. An explosive boiling is prevented. It seems also the more the normal boiling is delayed the more explosive is the ending of the metastable state. The more extended the delay the higher the difference in the temperature over the normal boiling point of water, the more urgency exists for ending the metastable state and the smaller differences in the parameters may trigger the delayed process. The greater the delay, the more energy is suddenly released, the greater the water explosion, but In the laser technique this effect is desirable.
On the other end very clean water can also exist below the freezing temperature, what is also a metastable state. The free parameter is the location, where the first crystal will occur. Throwing in a small stone defines a certain value of the free parameter and the crystallization begins and goes fast. Normally are there impurities which do the same.

5.1.1. Tensile strength of water:
A water column in a vertical pipe has a certain tensile strength like rope, but only if the water is extremely clean.(absolute clean water in the atomic scale is very expensive to make.) Any contamination defines a breaking point along the column. A very small phenomenon can trigger a big one.
Could a string be strengthened only by making it very evenly - down to the size of atoms? A string with carbon tubes may show it in the future.

5.1.2. Condensation:
If the humidity in clear air gets over a certain point (dew point) it should condensate as water or fog, but some times nothing happens. A high flying airplane starts the process of condensation with particles in the exhaust and we see the well known stripes in the sky.  The free parameter of a metastable state was the exact location of condensation, where the water droplet shell be created. Every particle defines such a point. Every droplet has a particle in it.

5.2 Inversion:
A similar effect exist in the air called inversion: Cold air is moving over warm air and the warm air is not rising and the cold air is not falling down respectively. But it should, because cold air is denser, but any vertical wind is missing. The free parameter in this metastable condition is again the location if there is not a single mountain peak. (In a mountain area there was never a tornado, or does somebody has data?) The warm air simply don't start upwards in a flat landscape, because there is no location distinguishing itself from all others and - like the case of the boiling water -  it ends up in a delayed, but violent event called tornado. The greater the delay the greater the destructive power of a tornado.
Should this theory be right there is a chance to avoid destructive tornados by punching vertical holes in the lower warm air layer earlier in an inversion with it the warm air has a chance to rise up or/and the cold air find a way to go down. On the end there is the warm air over the cold one and no big tornados any more.
To pull the plug on an inversion a vertical stream must be established - up or down. To start at certain points strong vertical winds is a technical challenge, but not impossible.
High rising stacks, which are open on the bottoms, on the right places could already help. A driven windmill inside the stack could perhaps already trigger the stream. Later a steady stream of air could also generate electricity as a byproduct. If it works there are probably still great numbers of these stacks needed, to cover a great country and it doesn’t look good.
Mobile units with bundles of the greatest turbines available could also be tried to start an
vertical wind in the right places.
If this itself generates tornados they will be smaller in an early state of an inversion and not in rural areas.
In Tornados the air goes generally upwards, but it could also tried out the other direction. Several strong helicopters stacked over each other though the entire warm air layer could perhaps generate a stream of cold air down to the earths surface.
After a while this stream should go on alone and enlarge itself.  With warm air going up and cold air going down  - and on the end - destructive tornados should be avoided.

5.3 Avalanche:
There may be more metastable states in our daily live. For instance snow on a slope may under certain condition run in a metastable state that it is getting that loose it should run downwards, but nothing happens. Than a small outside event as a sound wave (bang) may trigger the avalanche. A very small event is able to trigger a large event, if there has been a metastable state involved.

5.4 Radioactive decay:
Radioactive decay seems to work without any influence from the outside. It will be perhaps the center of the debate, because we don't know yet the reason why a nucleus emits nucleons or/and radiation just this time and just in a specific direction.
Some nucleus can be - as electrons - in an exited state - and perhaps also in a metastable state. Then there is the same problem: direction in space are not predetermined, but total free - and a nucleus has no free will to choose a direction in space as long every direction is equal. The micro-Brownian molecular movement (no plasma) has no influence to the nucleus of an atom, but hard radiation, cosmic rays, neutrinos and high energetic particle could react with the nucleus to determine time and direction of the decay. According to this new law radioactive decay needs outside help.
In an absolute empty space without any radiation and without any particles like neutrinos radioactive decay should stop. Experiments must decide about this theory.
(The recently discovery of a certain dependency of the radioactive decay from the distance from the sun seems to support this theory.)
6. Conclusions
Nature is unable to choose between equal ways and is waiting of an information input. Nature has not a free will or as Einstein said: "God doesn't play dice."
Causality is established again.

7. Perspective
Metastable states will likely be found everywhere if nature is waiting of the necessary information which way to go, ergo not only in physics, but also in chemistry and perhaps even in electronics, societies etc.
It seems that the ending of a metastable state is often violent and even more so if the release of a metastable state is more delayed. What about the most violent processes in the cosmos? Are some of them the result of a metastable state? The most violent event was the big bang. Was before the big bang some sort of metastable state? There must have been a priori some exact equal parameters for a free choosing.
 
References
       [1]   W. Isaacson, ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-6473-0, page 324, 2007
   [2]   N. Bohr, Schilpp, page 205-206,1920
     [3]   A. Z. Devdariani und E. A. Chesnokov, Optics and Spectroscopy,  Vol. 99 page 858-865, 2005       


Picture by Wolfhart Willimczik

Fig. 1 shows one of the first pictures of a track of an low energetic alpha particle in my special spark chamber.



Picture by Wolfhart Willimczik

Fig. 2 shows a track of the same sort of alpha particles, but taken 600 ns (nanoseconds) after the occurrence of the alpha particle.


This article can also seen here:
http://science-technology-inventions.weebly.com/


There are more and more measurements indicating the radioactive decay is not constant.


“Getting out of the solar core, neutrinos are speed demons, photons are slugs. h/t to Leif Svalgaard for the graphical annotation inspiration.
In August, WUWT carried a story that was rather shocking: some physicists published claims they have detected a variation in earthly radioactive decay rates, big news by itself, but the shocker is they attributed it to solar neutrinos.”


It seems I am the only physicist with an explanation why neutrinos trigger radioactive decay.

Research papers: PERIODIC VARIATIONS: SCALE OF DAYS OR YEARS:
·   http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/publications/Fischbach.et.al.2012.pdf
·   Evidence for Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates by Ephraim Fischbach et al. [2010/07] Presents evidence of a fluctuation tied to the Rieger periodicity.
·   Half-life of 32Si by D. E. Alburger et al. [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 78, 168 (1986)] Observed an unexplained annual variation in the ratio of silicon-32 to chlorine-36.
·   Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance by Jere H. Jenkins et al. [Astroparticle Physics 32, 42 (2009)]
·   Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft by Peter S. Cooper [Astroparticle Physics 31, 267 (2009)] ... and finding none.
·   Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance by Eric B. Norman et al. [Astroparticle Physics 31, 135 (2009)]
Analysis of environmental influences in nuclear half-life measurements exhibiting time-dependent decay rates by Jere H. Jenkins et al. [Nucl. Inst.

4

New Theories / Sleep and dream in a scientific view

« on: 23/04/2013 05:18:54 »

Sleep and dream in a scientific view

by Physicist Wolfhart Willimczik

In the lexicon, one finds: "The dream is a kind of
unconscious mental activity. Their biological function has not yet been fully
understood."

I could find also: During sleep, the information of the day is "processed".

How exactly does that happen? This is a first attempt to explain it.

We will understand how our brain is working if we succeed to
build a computer with the same features - which is able to do the same
processes as our brain - at least in some respect.

Such comparison is scientifically allowable, because both
have to follow the laws of nature, ergo run in the same problems.

Such a computer must have all the sensors as a human, at
least eyes and ears. We could put a video camera on a human running the entire
day. The problem comes if all the available memory sticks are full. If we not
interfere we would find that this computer needs to disconnect from all sensors
after about a day to get into a quite or "sleeping" mode to process all the
information from last day to avoid a shut down due to a full memory. (The
"sleep mode" on today's computer is not the same.)

Our brain has the same problem to process all information
from the last day to make room for a new flow of information the next day. Our
today's computer ask us what can be erased and what shell be where and how
permanently saved. Our brain must do this task without asking us. Ergo - our
futuristic computer must do the same
without any help from the outside, processing and saving large video files,
sound files, information coming in by an entire array of sensors similar to a
human and files made by programs inside the computer itself to the right
places. Evidently our brain has to divide itself in at least one working part
(RAM - Random Access
Memory) and in a storage part (ROM - Read Only Memory), actually in several parts. We know
already a ultra short memory in the range of 1 minute, a short time memory of
about 1 day and a permanent memory.

The brain - like computer must know (our character,
experience etc) what is worse to save and what can be erased. If the computer
shell work alone a live time (over 80 years) with a limited capacity of its
memory etc it can't save all the incoming information, but must decide what to
erase and what to save permanently. If there is already a big memory from many
years like a 30 years old human it will be a complicated process what needs
time and the entire processing capacity. In this time the computer cuts all
connections to its sensors except a few necessary for survival. We call it
sleep. It may take the entire night. In the morning the computer will just be
ready to take more information from all the sensors etc.

Our brain has already all these features and is able to deal
with an immense amount of information.

How can a futuristic computer do this?

First there is a short-term memory that stores everything
like a video recorder, but just a short time, because it is easily filled up.
The eyes provide a video - sound, touch, own thoughts etc will be added. Some
of it goes into a storage that contains everything since the last sleep. The
rest of the short-term memory is erased approximately every minute.

The unimportant information must be identified and deleted.
For this purpose every piece of information get an extra parameter - "a
level of importance". Today's computers can not do it, but our brain makes
it always automatically. Depending on our character, experience etc we know
what we are interested in the pictures, the noise, odor and other impressions.
According to our impression the information is erased or is more or less deep
in our memory saved. All what made us astonished or frightened will be
permanently stored - "wow-effect".

Example:

From a big crowd remains just the image of the beautiful
girl. Everything else will be deleted immediately. From the entire video we saw
only one person.

All the selected information is now in the daily memory,

which is already significant less, but must be emptied during sleep, to be
receptive again the next day. In sleep, the connections to the sensors are
disconnected or almost all shut down, that the entire brain processing capacity
can now be used to process all new information - empty the RAM.

It knows what we're interested in, which is saved in our -
lets say - "character". But this is
still not enough. It must find the right spot in the permanent storage, that it
can easily accessed again, if the owner of this brain has the desire to
remember this. The bigger the storage the more difficult is this process to
save and to read again this specific information. (it is known that humans with
smaller storage can faster remember things.)



The saving process itself:

The computer/brain must compare the new information (what
was happening today) with everything that already exists in the permanent

storage to find the right spot for saving the new information.

Therefore, it searches in the sleeping mode the entire memory for similarities. This is
normally beyond our consciousness (except if we dream.) Junks of saved
information must have something like a name, number or similar finding tool. If
there are found similarities to several already existing information a more
specific process is started. We would on a split screen run the new video and
simultaneously different ones from the permanent memory until we find one
fitting to the new one and save it there permanently. Our brain made it
probably basically in the same way, but a bit more intelligent. It had millions
of years to optimize this process. (I had 71 years only.)

Example:

The brain would have erased the visit of the

mother-in-law almost immediately, but she was that annoying and made the couple
angry, this event received such a very negative review (strong impression) that
the brain saved it permanently. The brain searched under
"mother-in-law", "annoying visitors" etc for similar events. In fact, she had done the same already 7
times before and the search engine of the brain finds easily a big chunk
"visits by mother-in-law". It compares the old "videos" with the new
one and notes that there are similar events and put it there to the old ones
during we sleep.

Our strong (negative) rating is maintained in the permanent

memory. This information may follow us the entire live, even if we want to
forget it. It can't be erased from the permanent memory. It could perhaps only
overwritten with the same event only with a better ending to sooth the memory.

Forgetting something is much harder than learning something
if it is already in the permanent memory. On the other hand we should get a
good sleep after we learned something, with it the brain saved it in the
permanent memory. (Very strong events like an accident etc go perhaps strait in
the permanent memory.)

The reading from our permanent memory is easier the higher
the rating from this specific information is. We are attempt to make a scale
from - 10 to + 10, but the actual rating can be in some seldom cases like an
accident much higher - that high, that it comes always uninvited back in our
consciousness (working memory or RAM) and messed up our day.

Dream:

This rather complicated process of selecting, erasing and

saving parts of our daily memory happens every night, regardless of whether we
have been dreaming or not. Because this is a long complicated process it will
need several hours - with a computer too.



If we - by some reason - disturb this process by switching
our just hard working memory (RAM) into conscious mode, we find remnants of the
day's events, but also things from the old days that either fit to each other
or not. We combine the 2 running "videos" just being in RAM to one. If we wake
up we remember this. This is our dream (a little simplified). We find in
a normal dream things from yesterday and things from older days.

But there are also different dreams:

Besides a video track, audio track etc, there are tracks
left by our own thoughts, which need to be processed as well. If you just burst
into this process with your consciousness, you will have either a nice dream,
because there was just the track with our desires, or we have a nightmare what
shows us what we fear the most.

So how can we define a dream?

We interrupt the normal information processing during sleep by turning on the

conscious mode. Now we "see" - in other words we dream - the fragments of the

two tracks running just this moment in our working memory (RAM).

Anyone can test this by himself by analyzing its own

"simple" dreams. The question is: are there things simultaneously in
a dream from yesterday and things from the past.

Now dream something nice. I am excited about the feedback.