Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel.  If there
> was Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report.  In
> fact as I noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of 01 percent.   It was not
> anyway reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by
> Higgins. .
>

As I attempted to show, even though the total amount of zinc reported in
the ICP-MS analysis was small, it was of an order of magnitude to
potentially explain part of the mass 64 balance.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

 

I doubt that the mass spec readings would have had such a peak at 64 given the 
low concentration of Zn reported. 

 

 

That’s because the zinc was labeled as nickel. Both the charts on page 14 and 
15 show the enrichment of 64Ni at 4.4% -- but now Parkhomov explains that what 
they thought was 64Ni was instead 64Zn.

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Cook]

I doubt that the mass spec readings would have had such a peak at 64 given the 
low concentration of Zn reported. 

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


  Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of 
the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent 
radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept 
that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid 
detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long 
half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.

This thought occurred to me as well.  The decay I considered was a 
double-electron capture to 64Ni.  The difficulty with this and other 
weak-interaction decay modes is that the number of nucleons does not change.  
By contrast, what was reported was a decrease in the 64 mass peak by nearly 
half.

This observation is what lead to an earlier comment of mine that there might be 
a large experimental uncertainty.  Or there's something changing the number of 
nucleons for 64Zn and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally have no conjecture to 
propose.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelI do not think 
there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel.  If there was Zn-64 in the 
samples tested it was not apparent from the report.  In fact as I noted 
yesterday, Zn was on the order of 01 percent.   It was not anyway reported near 
4 % per my review of the AP report translated by Higgins. .

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

Now that we are learning the 64Zn could be an active isotope for thermal gain 
in the glow-tube (assuming no measurement errors) it should be noted that this 
is the most common isotope of zinc but is slightly radioactive with an 
extremely long half-life. It does not need to be enriched.

 

The fact that 64Zn is slightly radioactive means that dense or fractional 
hydrogen could play the major role in a thermal anomaly process, since it is 
present in a metal matrix and positioned to disrupt the electrostatic balance 
of zinc nuclei by getting closer than with a normal hydride. This would be 
“accelerated beta decay” with dense hydrogen approaching the 64Zn nucleus close 
enough to trigger beta decay, which would be far more likely than fusion. 

 

Starting Zinc content would be 8% of the Nickel alloy. However, this is not out 
of the question, since there is a common zinc-nickel electroplating alloy and 
Parkhomov was known to be working on a low budget, so he may have used recycled 
nickel containing this alloy. 

 

This would be good news if true, since zinc is relatively cheap and beta decay 
is easily shielded. 

 

--

Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi 
results).

"About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was 
registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."

That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The 
isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the 
excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the 
starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since 
Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes 
which were not mentioned.

Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the 
zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent 
radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept 
that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid 
detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long 
half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.

The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment 
to see if it could really be this simple.

Re: [Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?

[Craig Haynie]

This is an interesting video. He takes a load off of the Orbo, and 
watches the voltage increase.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbKcgyCVzI#t=14.024172

Craig

On 03/28/2016 10:33 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/ 



Craig

RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Now that we are learning the 64Zn could be an active isotope for thermal gain 
in the glow-tube (assuming no measurement errors) it should be noted that this 
is the most common isotope of zinc but is slightly radioactive with an 
extremely long half-life. It does not need to be enriched.

 

The fact that 64Zn is slightly radioactive means that dense or fractional 
hydrogen could play the major role in a thermal anomaly process, since it is 
present in a metal matrix and positioned to disrupt the electrostatic balance 
of zinc nuclei by getting closer than with a normal hydride. This would be 
“accelerated beta decay” with dense hydrogen approaching the 64Zn nucleus close 
enough to trigger beta decay, which would be far more likely than fusion. 

 

Starting Zinc content would be 8% of the Nickel alloy. However, this is not out 
of the question, since there is a common zinc-nickel electroplating alloy and 
Parkhomov was known to be working on a low budget, so he may have used recycled 
nickel containing this alloy. 

 

This would be good news if true, since zinc is relatively cheap and beta decay 
is easily shielded. 

 

--

Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi 
results).

"About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was 
registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."

That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The 
isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the 
excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the 
starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since 
Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes 
which were not mentioned.

Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the 
zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent 
radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept 
that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid 
detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long 
half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.

The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment 
to see if it could really be this simple.

[Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?

[Craig Haynie]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/

Craig

Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

This observation [of a change in the number of nucleons] is what lead to an
> earlier comment of mine that there might be a large experimental
> uncertainty.  Or there's something changing the number of nucleons for 64Zn
> and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally have no conjecture to propose.
>

On second thought, there is one possibility I might propose. If there is an
alpha emitter present whose decay is being induced, it may be that alpha
capture is taking the mass 64 peaks to 66 and 68, etc.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of
> the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent
> radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must
> accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly
> avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely
> long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.


This thought occurred to me as well.  The decay I considered was a
double-electron capture to 64Ni.  The difficulty with this and other
weak-interaction decay modes is that the number of nucleons does not
change.  By contrast, what was reported was a decrease in the 64 mass peak
by nearly half.

This observation is what lead to an earlier comment of mine that there
might be a large experimental uncertainty.  Or there's something changing
the number of nucleons for 64Zn and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally
have no conjecture to propose.

Eric

RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi 
results).

"About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was 
registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."

That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The 
isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the 
excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the 
starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since 
Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes 
which were not mentioned.

Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the 
zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent 
radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept 
that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid 
detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long 
half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.

The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment 
to see if it could really be this simple.

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H LV]

If the cooling effect is real then could also be indicative of an
unfamiliar form of energy storage.

Harry

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> @Vibrator,
>
>
>
> As you imply, some form of negative hysteresis would be the Holy Gail for
> alternative energy – better than LENR. I am not sure that it is
> fundamentally contrary to ferromagnetism, so much as requiring a core which
> has both antiferromagnetic domains or zones which are juxtaposed to
> ferromagnetic zones. Thus the “automatic flipping” is possible but only in
> the antiferromagnetic regions.
>
>
>
> The closest anyone has come to demonstrating this which I know about is the
> Manelas device, tested by Brian Ahern – slides here:
>
> https://ecatsite.wordpress.com/manelas-device/
>
>
>
> The best evidence for negative hysteresis in this device is that under load
> of about 50 watts, the ferrite billet (which severs as the core of an odd
> transformer with x,y, and z windings) was measured to have dropped in
> temperature over ambient. The expectation is that like any core, it should
> have been heated substantially by the rapidly alternating fields (~135 KHz)
> but instead - it dropped in temperature.
>
>
>
> To me it seems a violation of CoE on several levels.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Vibrator !
>
>
>
> Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in
> systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses
> would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically
> changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying)
> field is a free energy gradient.  The automatic flipping of the remanant
> flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle.
>
> It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally
> contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so
> further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present
> context.
>
> It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between
> time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right
> up our street..
>
> Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that
> the conservation laws are time-invariant.  But of course this is a perfectly
> trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop...
> and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial..
>
> The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an
> interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound)
> force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in
> question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two
> integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation
> to the field's own finite rates of change.
>
> In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be
> treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring
> energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities
> (ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational
> interactions are impossible).  However in material or aggregagte systems,
> effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light"
> phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with
> time-dependent net energies...
>
> In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic
> system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be
> thermodynamically closed.
>
> Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed
> against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output
> integral.
>
> In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the
> additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary
> force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic.
> Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of
> thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the
> direction reversed.  But the same animal nonetheless.
>
> However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their
> implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM
> systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an
> additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a
> stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils
> and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism.
>
> And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by
> the wayside..
>
> But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits (not
> in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to raise
> the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that investment
> coming back down the other side, when 

[Vo]:Re: Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Bob Cook]

And if the magnetic field increases sufficiently, it tends to create a 
one-dimensional space.  The rules for interaction of quantum systems change.  
All the energy states allowed by a coherent system change drastically.  
Resonances change along with the changing magnetic field.  Electrons and 
protons may transform to neutrons, and other nuclei change as well given the 
presence of neutrons.  That is what seems to happen in LENR.  It suggests the 
W-L theory of LENR.   The one dimensional nature of the coherent system may 
lend itself to a Storm type linear arrangement of protons as well.  This 
radical image would indicate the anisotropy of space-time as influenced by 
magnetic fields. 

The recent Armenian Theory of relativity reported in the current issue of 
Infinite Energy address strange things that may happen as a result of such 
anisotropy of space-time—a radical and interesting treatment.

  Who knows what happens in a locally intense magnetic field?  

In fact as suggested by P Hitt in his theory of the massification 
(construction) of protons and neutrons (also reflected recent by W. Stubbs 
theory recently discussed on Vortex-l) protons may even be assembled from 
matter and anti matter, positrons and electrons. 

Such happening would be consistent with changing kinetic energy to potential 
energy and/or changing EM radiation energy to mass of protons, neutrons and 
heavier atoms, especially the stable alphas.N. Cook and Rossi have 
heretofore suggested the importance of alpha stability in the direction LENR 
takes on the road to more mass and less kinetic energy.  Rossi (and Cook) 
promises a theory of their Ni-H system soon. 

Bob Cook

From: Vibrator ! 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise 
spinning of magnets

Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in 
systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses would 
indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically changing under 
zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) field is a free 
energy gradient.  The automatic flipping of the remanant flux against its own 
coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle.

It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally 
contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so 
further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present context.

It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between 
time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right up 
our street..

Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that the 
conservation laws are time-invariant.  But of course this is a perfectly trite 
statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... and 
entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial..

The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an 
interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) 
force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in question 
is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two integrals is a 
function of our applied displacement velocities in relation to the field's own 
finite rates of change.

In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be treated 
as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring energy symmetry 
regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities (ie. mass & gravity 
are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational interactions are impossible).  
However in material or aggregagte systems, effective field propogation rates 
can be finite (per "slow light" phenomena), opening up this arena of passively 
time-varying systems, with time-dependent net energies... 

In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic 
system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be 
thermodynamically closed.

Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed against 
the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output integral.

In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the 
additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary force 
and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. Non-dissipative 
loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of thermodynamic gains - 
it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the direction reversed.  But the 
same animal nonetheless.

However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their 
implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM systems 
such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an additional 
load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a stronger 
applied 

[Vo]:Re: [usa-tesla] 5 things Einstein got totally wrong

[Harvey Norris]

Here's a refutation of the recent gravitation wave measurementsGravity Waves 
found? 14 Years NOTHING, but "find" it on 100-year Einstein publishing 
anniversary https://youtu.be/PBpMQ564cWQ Pioneering the Applications of 
Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 

On Monday, March 28, 2016 12:41 PM, "Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com 
[usa-tesla]"  wrote:
 

     5 things Einstein got totally wrong
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
5 things Einstein got totally wrong
 Relativity is now a centerpiece of modern physics, the reason GPS satellites 
and mobile internet exist, and why ...  |   |

  |

  |

 I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common 
sense . I myself became confused on the issue upon first speculating whether  
the % of decrease in time present on the near light velocity subject would 
equal the % of increase of time observed from the opposite dilated time frame. 
In fact this should not be predicted; instead the quantities should be 
reciprocals of one another so that a time frame compressed to one half of the 
stationary one will have his observation show a doubling of respective time 
comparison on the inverse observation. Then along comes someone making a note 
that I didn't understand relativity, and also implying that my 666 machine is 
therefore also invalid because I claim to be converting time into energy by 
this reciprocal method. To this I can only say;"When I finish with my flux 
capacitor experimentation the phenomenon of reactive magnification of energy 
will be undeniable. A flux capacitor is a resonance designed so that the 
physical dimensions of the inductive and capacitive containers of energy 
movement can be placed inside one another so that their electric and magnetic 
fields can be reacted together at right angles, to possibly cause charge 
movement at the remaining third angle in space by Lorentz forces. The first 
experiment to show a magnification of energy will be to separate the fields in 
the flux capacitor system in space as a primary input. Then a secondary system 
will be added by surrounding the cylindrical electric field component with a 
high induction coil from a second set of flux capacitor system. Now the primary 
will loose vibration when the secondary system is added. But here that loss of 
vibration will be entirely minimized and a much greater total gain of energy 
will take place. Every oscillating electric field has a counterpart magnetic 
field in space and in this case scenario the secondary has another capacity 
that it resonates to that is near identical to the capacity it is magnetically 
drawing its energy from."  But to conclude here it turns out that a paradox 
exists called "symmetrical time dilation" whereby in this previously made 
relativistic propositon each observer will see the other ones time frame as 
running slower then his. So how does this imply that my resonant devices should 
not work? Only time will tell. 
Sincerely Harvey D Norris
 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/  __._,_.___ Posted by: Harvey 
Norris  
|  Reply via web post  | • |   Reply to sender   | • |   Reply to group   | • | 
 Start a New Topic  | • |  Messages in this topic (1)  |

  Visit Your Group
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
 .  
 __,_._,___#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205 -- #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp {border:1px 
solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2426294205 
#yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2426294205 
#yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp #yiv2426294205hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp #yiv2426294205ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp .yiv2426294205ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp .yiv2426294205ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp .yiv2426294205ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv2426294205ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2426294205 
#yiv2426294205ygrp-sponsor #yiv2426294205ygrp-lc #yiv2426294205hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2426294205 
#yiv2426294205ygrp-sponsor #yiv2426294205ygrp-lc .yiv2426294205ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2426294205 
#yiv2426294205activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2426294205
 #yiv2426294205activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2426294205 
#yiv2426294205activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2426294205 

[Vo]:Re: [usa-tesla] 5 things Einstein got totally wrong

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>>I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common 
 >>>sense . I myself became confused on the issue 

the problem is that there is a contradiction in the maths as I show at-
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its co... |
|  |
| View on www.youtube.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |



Einstein was just no good at maths, as Claes explains at--

Did Einstein Not Understand Math?

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Did Einstein Not Understand Math?What can you expect from a mathematical 
theory developed by someone who did not understand mathematics? |
|  |
| View on claesjohnsonmaths... | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


So even if you want to go by Einstein's relativity, it is just full of misuses 
of maths.


 

On Monday, 28 March 2016, 17:41, "Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com 
[usa-tesla]"  wrote:
 

     5 things Einstein got totally wrong
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
5 things Einstein got totally wrong
 Relativity is now a centerpiece of modern physics, the reason GPS satellites 
and mobile internet exist, and why ...  |   |

  |

  |

 I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common 
sense . I myself became confused on the issue upon first speculating whether  
the % of decrease in time present on the near light velocity subject would 
equal the % of increase of time observed from the opposite dilated time frame. 
In fact this should not be predicted; instead the quantities should be 
reciprocals of one another so that a time frame compressed to one half of the 
stationary one will have his observation show a doubling of respective time 
comparison on the inverse observation. Then along comes someone making a note 
that I didn't understand relativity, and also implying that my 666 machine is 
therefore also invalid because I claim to be converting time into energy by 
this reciprocal method. To this I can only say;"When I finish with my flux 
capacitor experimentation the phenomenon of reactive magnification of energy 
will be undeniable. A flux capacitor is a resonance designed so that the 
physical dimensions of the inductive and capacitive containers of energy 
movement can be placed inside one another so that their electric and magnetic 
fields can be reacted together at right angles, to possibly cause charge 
movement at the remaining third angle in space by Lorentz forces. The first 
experiment to show a magnification of energy will be to separate the fields in 
the flux capacitor system in space as a primary input. Then a secondary system 
will be added by surrounding the cylindrical electric field component with a 
high induction coil from a second set of flux capacitor system. Now the primary 
will loose vibration when the secondary system is added. But here that loss of 
vibration will be entirely minimized and a much greater total gain of energy 
will take place. Every oscillating electric field has a counterpart magnetic 
field in space and in this case scenario the secondary has another capacity 
that it resonates to that is near identical to the capacity it is magnetically 
drawing its energy from."  But to conclude here it turns out that a paradox 
exists called "symmetrical time dilation" whereby in this previously made 
relativistic propositon each observer will see the other ones time frame as 
running slower then his. So how does this imply that my resonant devices should 
not work? Only time will tell. 
Sincerely Harvey D Norris
 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/  __._,_.___ Posted by: Harvey 
Norris  
|  Reply via web post  | • |   Reply to sender   | • |   Reply to group   | • | 
 Start a New Topic  | • |  Messages in this topic (1)  |

  Visit Your Group
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
 .  
 __,_._,___#yiv7938073197 -- #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7938073197 
#yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7938073197 
#yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp #yiv7938073197hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp #yiv7938073197ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp .yiv7938073197ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp .yiv7938073197ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp .yiv7938073197ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv7938073197ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7938073197 
#yiv7938073197ygrp-sponsor #yiv7938073197ygrp-lc #yiv7938073197hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7938073197 
#yiv7938073197ygrp-sponsor #yiv7938073197ygrp-lc .yiv7938073197ad 

RE: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Jones Beene]

@Vibrator,

 

As you imply, some form of negative hysteresis would be the Holy Gail for 
alternative energy – better than LENR. I am not sure that it is fundamentally 
contrary to ferromagnetism, so much as requiring a core which has both 
antiferromagnetic domains or zones which are juxtaposed to ferromagnetic zones. 
Thus the “automatic flipping” is possible but only in the antiferromagnetic 
regions.

 

The closest anyone has come to demonstrating this which I know about is the 
Manelas device, tested by Brian Ahern – slides here:

https://ecatsite.wordpress.com/manelas-device/

 

The best evidence for negative hysteresis in this device is that under load of 
about 50 watts, the ferrite billet (which severs as the core of an odd 
transformer with x,y, and z windings) was measured to have dropped in 
temperature over ambient. The expectation is that like any core, it should have 
been heated substantially by the rapidly alternating fields (~135 KHz) but 
instead - it dropped in temperature.

 

To me it seems a violation of CoE on several levels.

 

 

From: Vibrator ! 

 

Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in 
systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses would 
indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically changing under 
zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) field is a free 
energy gradient.  The automatic flipping of the remanant flux against its own 
coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle.

It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally 
contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so 
further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present context.

It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between 
time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right up 
our street..

Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that the 
conservation laws are time-invariant.  But of course this is a perfectly trite 
statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... and 
entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial..

The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an 
interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) 
force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in question 
is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two integrals is a 
function of our applied displacement velocities in relation to the field's own 
finite rates of change.

In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be treated 
as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring energy symmetry 
regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities (ie. mass & gravity 
are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational interactions are impossible).  
However in material or aggregagte systems, effective field propogation rates 
can be finite (per "slow light" phenomena), opening up this arena of passively 
time-varying systems, with time-dependent net energies... 

In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic 
system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be 
thermodynamically closed.

Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed against 
the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output integral.

In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the 
additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary force 
and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. Non-dissipative 
loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of thermodynamic gains - 
it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the direction reversed.  But the 
same animal nonetheless.

However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their 
implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM systems 
such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an additional 
load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a stronger 
applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils and net 
circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism.

And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by the 
wayside..

But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits (not in 
itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to raise the 
current and flux density, but we could then recoup that investment coming back 
down the other side, when the domains are aligning in their preferential 
direction, and we'll have incurred no such incidental heating costs.  The net 
sum's still zero, but we haven't lost anything either.

Another example would be entropy viscosity (Sv) as investigated by Rutherford 
in his first paper (c. 1886) - normally 

[Vo]:5 things Einstein got totally wrong

[Harvey Norris]

5 things Einstein got totally wrong
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
5 things Einstein got totally wrong
 Relativity is now a centerpiece of modern physics, the reason GPS satellites 
and mobile internet exist, and why ...  |   |

  |

  |

 I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common 
sense . I myself became confused on the issue upon first speculating whether  
the % of decrease in time present on the near light velocity subject would 
equal the % of increase of time observed from the opposite dilated time frame. 
In fact this should not be predicted; instead the quantities should be 
reciprocals of one another so that a time frame compressed to one half of the 
stationary one will have his observation show a doubling of respective time 
comparison on the inverse observation. Then along comes someone making a note 
that I didn't understand relativity, and also implying that my 666 machine is 
therefore also invalid because I claim to be converting time into energy by 
this reciprocal method. To this I can only say;"When I finish with my flux 
capacitor experimentation the phenomenon of reactive magnification of energy 
will be undeniable. A flux capacitor is a resonance designed so that the 
physical dimensions of the inductive and capacitive containers of energy 
movement can be placed inside one another so that their electric and magnetic 
fields can be reacted together at right angles, to possibly cause charge 
movement at the remaining third angle in space by Lorentz forces. The first 
experiment to show a magnification of energy will be to separate the fields in 
the flux capacitor system in space as a primary input. Then a secondary system 
will be added by surrounding the cylindrical electric field component with a 
high induction coil from a second set of flux capacitor system. Now the primary 
will loose vibration when the secondary system is added. But here that loss of 
vibration will be entirely minimized and a much greater total gain of energy 
will take place. Every oscillating electric field has a counterpart magnetic 
field in space and in this case scenario the secondary has another capacity 
that it resonates to that is near identical to the capacity it is magnetically 
drawing its energy from."  But to conclude here it turns out that a paradox 
exists called "symmetrical time dilation" whereby in this previously made 
relativistic propositon each observer will see the other ones time frame as 
running slower then his. So how does this imply that my resonant devices should 
not work? Only time will tell. 
Sincerely Harvey D Norris
 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

[Vo]:LENR COMMENTS AND INFO

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-28-2016-lenr-comments-and-info.html

Great contributions, one from a far continent the other from a less far
sub-continent- blessed the Internet for connecting fast with friends
everywhere!

Things are developing and this will be accelerated soon.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Removing rust and paint with a laser

[H LV]

Removing rust and paint with a laser

https://www.facebook.com/ScienceNaturePage/videos/799474420184818/?hc_location=ufi

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in
systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses
would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically
changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating
(time-varying) field is a free energy gradient.  The automatic flipping of
the remanant flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per
cycle.

It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally
contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so
further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present
context.

It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between
time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right
up our street..

Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that
the conservation laws are time-invariant.  But of course this is a
perfectly trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday,
big whoop... and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial..

The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an
interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound)
force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in
question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two
integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation
to the field's own finite rates of change.

In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be
treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring
energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities
(ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational
interactions are impossible).  However in material or aggregagte systems,
effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light"
phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with
time-dependent net energies...

In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic
system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be
thermodynamically closed.

Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed
against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output
integral.

In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the
additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary
force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic.
Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of
thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the
direction reversed.  But the same animal nonetheless.

However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their
implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM
systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an
additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a
stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils
and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism.

And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by
the wayside..

But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits
(not in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to
raise the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that
investment coming back down the other side, when the domains are aligning
in their preferential direction, and we'll have incurred no such incidental
heating costs.  The net sum's still zero, but we haven't lost anything
either.

Another example would be entropy viscosity (Sv) as investigated by
Rutherford in his first paper (c. 1886) - normally an engineering obstacle,
since a motor or transformer pulsed faster than the response frequency of
its magnetic cores cannot induce any more flux with rising current, hence
the only remaining workload beyond an Sv-restricted max speed would again
be resistance losses.  As such, Sv is usually dismissed as dissipative when
it, too, is not - resistance losses are surely dissipative, but incidental
to the nature of Sv losses which are intrinsically time-variant.

As an example, suppose a magnet is allowed to attract itself across some
small distance, to a lump of rough iron.  Due to the diversity of the
iron's internal domain structures, different regions have varying remanance
and coercivities, some domains are pinned harder than others and so its
magnetisation curve is non-linear and laggy - holdout domains are still
popping into alignment, even some time after the magnets have joined
together and stopped moving.

So the induced field is increasing, ambiently, of its own accord. If we
then separate the magnet from the core, we'll have to input more mechanical
effort to prise them apart, than they originally exerted when 

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H Ucar]

I have a recent discussion of physics forums on these experiments, rather 
informative, for whom is interested.
https://www.physicsforums.com/conversations/bound-states-of-spinning-magnets.80338/