Re: [Vo]:The Higgs mode
We here see to many fantasies. Russ Georges experiments did not produce over unity. The energy can be calculated by simple fusion physics rule/laws. In classic dimensions magnetic forces always lead to a minimum configuration and no perpetual motion is possible. Only atoms can do this. Please also keep in mind that 4 potential math (Higgs field) is only math and has nothing to do with real physics. You can never fold a vector potential time like as magnetic force/mass is already at light speed. To explain new effects you need new physics. Any reference to standard model only shows how clueless people (Axil) are. If you really (deeply) want to understand why the standard model math is nonsense please study the work of Farhad: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi He is a math prof at UNI Konstanz. J.W. On 25.06.2021 03:45, Vibrator ! wrote: Magnetic 'over' and 'under' unity interactions are spectrum conditions of the same basic effects of magnets doing what they always do - there IS no deus ex machina when we throw back the curtains and see how the trick was achieved! EM OU - if not OU per se - is nothing so exotic as mundane dynamics, properly observed; a wood / trees issue. I'll give two familiar examples; the first a thermodynamic loss, the second a gain: - consider a small NdFeB attracting over some air gap towards a lump of pig iron; the latter having significant Sv (entropy viscosity per Rutherford) - if the displacement completes in less time than the responding rise in B within the rough iron sample, then we end up with the neo stuck to the iron, while inside the material, the harder-pinned domains continue to yield to the increasing alignment of their neighbors We could monitor these avalanches by amping up the sample and listening in on the Barkhausen jumps; when they cease, it's cooked, bashically.. - if we now prise the neo off and return it to its starting position, we'll be performing more work (F*d) on the input stroke, than the interaction output when the samples attracted together.. So the interaction's I/O-asymmetric because the induced field density and resulting force increased during the resting period, AFTER the output stroke had already completed, but BEFORE pulling 'em apart again. We thus did more mechanical work than the EM field (vacuum potential) did! This is mechanical under-unity - we could cycle this interaction all day and calorimetry will show the missing input energy as lost - ie. all of it did mechanical work pulling the magnets apart, so none of it is 'missing', as such.. we simply didn't get as much work out of the field as we put in, as it wasn't fully formed yet.. Got that? Thermodynamic (ie. non-dissipative) loss, from a time-variant passive magnetic interaction. 'CoE', read it and weep.. Now for the gain scenario: - two magnets stacked vertically, stuck to the rim of a horizontal rotor, opposite poles facing outwards (ie. in the radial plane) - solenoid stator with a hi-mu core, facing inwards - both magnets attract equally to the stator core, applying positive torque to the rotor - as they reach TDC (min airgap), the solenoid's fired, applying one pole outwards - ..rotor mags are thus equally attracted and repelled - ie. zero net torque - while counter-EMF's induced in the coil by the retreating magnets are likewise mutually destructive Fine-tune stator/rotor level with a micrometer head and a 'scope on the CEMF. - punchline: magnetic F*d is time-invariant, whereas resistance heating - the primary input workload - is a time-dependent function of Joule's 2nd law for heat (Q=I^2rt) and RPM, bashically - ie. per cycle input energy (duty cycle) is inverse to speed.. so the faster it spins, the less input heating work for the same magnetic output work. Et voila, electro-mechanical OU. I could alternatively describe a purely passive gain (the Kinetron toy) - but this is all courtesy of Steorn of course (Sean Mc's "where'd the energy go?" poser and the v8.3 EM Orbo respectively). The point here however is the conspicuous absence of any exotic or even particularly unconventional physics or principles - in both cases it's just the basic laws of induction doing what they ALWAYS do, all the time everywhere. Time-variant asymmetric EM interactions simply play Noether symmetries to create divergent inertial frames, opening the system to source or sink +/- h-bar to vacuum.. but ALL EM interactions are vacuum interactions, period.. equitable or not. In the fist instance tho, it's just force and time picking up the bill. Understand this - that OU is tractable and tangible by familiar terms (MUST be, for heavens sake!) - and any notion that it might require recourse to exotic new physics surely melts away; the REAL problem, surely, was that it was previously simply INTRACTABLE as a concept; how to even get a handle on it? 1+1 is not
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs mode
Magnetic 'over' and 'under' unity interactions are spectrum conditions of the same basic effects of magnets doing what they always do - there IS no deus ex machina when we throw back the curtains and see how the trick was achieved! EM OU - if not OU per se - is nothing so exotic as mundane dynamics, properly observed; a wood / trees issue. I'll give two familiar examples; the first a thermodynamic loss, the second a gain: - consider a small NdFeB attracting over some air gap towards a lump of pig iron; the latter having significant Sv (entropy viscosity per Rutherford) - if the displacement completes in less time than the responding rise in B within the rough iron sample, then we end up with the neo stuck to the iron, while inside the material, the harder-pinned domains continue to yield to the increasing alignment of their neighbors We could monitor these avalanches by amping up the sample and listening in on the Barkhausen jumps; when they cease, it's cooked, bashically.. - if we now prise the neo off and return it to its starting position, we'll be performing more work (F*d) on the input stroke, than the interaction output when the samples attracted together.. So the interaction's I/O-asymmetric because the induced field density and resulting force increased during the resting period, AFTER the output stroke had already completed, but BEFORE pulling 'em apart again. We thus did more mechanical work than the EM field (vacuum potential) did! This is mechanical under-unity - we could cycle this interaction all day and calorimetry will show the missing input energy as lost - ie. all of it did mechanical work pulling the magnets apart, so none of it is 'missing', as such.. we simply didn't get as much work out of the field as we put in, as it wasn't fully formed yet.. Got that? Thermodynamic (ie. non-dissipative) loss, from a time-variant passive magnetic interaction. 'CoE', read it and weep.. Now for the gain scenario: - two magnets stacked vertically, stuck to the rim of a horizontal rotor, opposite poles facing outwards (ie. in the radial plane) - solenoid stator with a hi-mu core, facing inwards - both magnets attract equally to the stator core, applying positive torque to the rotor - as they reach TDC (min airgap), the solenoid's fired, applying one pole outwards - ..rotor mags are thus equally attracted and repelled - ie. zero net torque - while counter-EMF's induced in the coil by the retreating magnets are likewise mutually destructive Fine-tune stator/rotor level with a micrometer head and a 'scope on the CEMF. - punchline: magnetic F*d is time-invariant, whereas resistance heating - the primary input workload - is a time-dependent function of Joule's 2nd law for heat (Q=I^2rt) and RPM, bashically - ie. per cycle input energy (duty cycle) is inverse to speed.. so the faster it spins, the less input heating work for the same magnetic output work. Et voila, electro-mechanical OU. I could alternatively describe a purely passive gain (the Kinetron toy) - but this is all courtesy of Steorn of course (Sean Mc's "where'd the energy go?" poser and the v8.3 EM Orbo respectively). The point here however is the conspicuous absence of any exotic or even particularly unconventional physics or principles - in both cases it's just the basic laws of induction doing what they ALWAYS do, all the time everywhere. Time-variant asymmetric EM interactions simply play Noether symmetries to create divergent inertial frames, opening the system to source or sink +/- h-bar to vacuum.. but ALL EM interactions are vacuum interactions, period.. equitable or not. In the fist instance tho, it's just force and time picking up the bill. Understand this - that OU is tractable and tangible by familiar terms (MUST be, for heavens sake!) - and any notion that it might require recourse to exotic new physics surely melts away; the REAL problem, surely, was that it was previously simply INTRACTABLE as a concept; how to even get a handle on it? 1+1 is not 3, right? So there HAD to be 'something else', right? Something that could square the circle.. Except, what if that 'something else' was just the old and familiar, yet in a novel light? In 1712, Bessler worked out how to gain the same amount of momentum from gravity and time each cycle, for the same internal work done, in spite of rising system RPM.. and the fact that KE squares with speed, while his net input work was simply summing as the per-cycle constant times the number of elapsed cycles. Mechanical OU, eighteenth-century style-e, by fixing the unit energy cost of momentum from G*t to a speed-invariant value. Simply playing the game, by the rules, in full observance of all conservation laws, and Noether's theorem. THAT is the key to over-unity..! (and whatever more besides..) So, not against new physics here.. not on an anti-QFT diatribe or anything... just don't see that the terms of reference of EM OU needs to 'go there' in
RE: [Vo]:The Higgs mode
Those experiments to make it even better have been completed and proved to be a spectacular success producing prodigious heat and myriad other definitively measurable nuclear signatures both well known and here-to-fore unknown. No surprises from the priestly professorial pundits who are only motivated by their own inaction to throw shade on those who stand at the experimental bench. Science progresses on sore feet not fat asses in comfy chairs. From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 3:40 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Higgs mode I never could understand how magnets could produce overunity effects until the Higgs mode has turned up in anisotropic magnets. To refresh our memories from a old post from Russ Gerorge as follows: I had the privilege of standing in the parking lot of the hotel where Chukan ov had his demo running for several hours in the company of Martin Fleischmann fusing some of our little grey cells over that device. Chukanov answered or at least responded to every single question we posed to him and we sent many his way. It was a fascinating and captivating demo. Martin was the kind of man who had insatiable curiosity and not a mean molecule in his body and showed it in his sincere interest and professorial manner. Chukanov sent us both away with several large chunks of his metal. Meanwhile the hundreds of ICCF conference attendees almost entirely shunned the ‘parking lot demo’ and Chukanov, especially the self-appointed high priest insiders of cold fusion. There was little but derision and snide attacks behind Chukanov’s back at the meeting. After a couple hours in hot afternoon sun with Chukanov and his machine Martin and I adjorned to the beach and floated for a long time like basking whales chatting about this and that. Somewhere in my collection of ‘cold fusion’ holy treasures I have some of Chukanov’s SmCo5 metal. I think I will dig it out and see if some of the recent ‘activation’ ideas make it work even better! The SmCo5 magnet is an anisotropic magnet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02498 Stable Higgs mode in anisotropic quantum magnets On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:06 PM Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote: Science says that the Higgs field is like a pencil that is standing on its point. Just the smallest perturbation can cause the Higgs field to fail. This twisty nature of the Higgs field could be the mechanism behind all the over-unity systems that have shown up over the years. The Higgs mode is a new behavior seen in condensed matter systems. The “Higgs Mode,” otherwise known as the Higgs amplitude mode, is seen as a close relative to the Higgs boson. Since the Higgs boson was first theorized in the 1960s, the first physical discovery came in 2012, and new quantum phenomena have since been detected. In this post, we look at the new quantum state known as the Higgs mode, the materials that the Higgs mode is found in and the Higgs Boson itself. The Higgs amplitude mode is a quantum phenomenon seen in materials and occurs when the magnetic field of its electrons fluctuate in a way similar to that of a Higgs boson. The materials that exhibit this phenomenon can do so because the crystal structure of the material enables the electrons to behave in such a way. When the Higgs mode presents itself in these materials, the material is often undergoing a quantum phase transition. The Higgs mode has been detected in many different systems, including in ultracold atomic gases, disordered superconductors, and dimerized quantum magnets. However, in many cases, the Higgs mode is unstable and decays. As such, it has only been reported in a handful of publications. However, some systems can support these quantum effects without decaying. The earliest experimental observation was seen in the Raman scattering of a superconducting charge-density wave compound. The Raman spectra found an unexpected peak that was later characterized as the presence of a Higgs mode. In a system where the Higgs mode is presented, the Higgs field in that system can be made to fail, in effect, the system topples the Higgs field inside that system. When the Higgs field fails, the forces of nature revert back to the way they were before the Higgs field manifested in the universe. That time is about 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. All sorts of weird and unworldly behaviors then developed in those Higgs mode systems
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs mode
I never could understand how magnets could produce overunity effects until the Higgs mode has turned up in anisotropic magnets. To refresh our memories from a old post from Russ Gerorge as follows: I had the privilege of standing in the parking lot of the hotel where Chukanov had his demo running for several hours in the company of Martin Fleischmann fusing some of our little grey cells over that device. Chukanov answered or at least responded to every single question we posed to him and we sent many his way. It was a fascinating and captivating demo. Martin was the kind of man who had insatiable curiosity and not a mean molecule in his body and showed it in his sincere interest and professorial manner. Chukanov sent us both away with several large chunks of his metal. Meanwhile the hundreds of ICCF conference attendees almost entirely shunned the ‘parking lot demo’ and Chukanov, especially the self-appointed high priest insiders of cold fusion. There was little but derision and snide attacks behind Chukanov’s back at the meeting. After a couple hours in hot afternoon sun with Chukanov and his machine Martin and I adjorned to the beach and floated for a long time like basking whales chatting about this and that. Somewhere in my collection of ‘cold fusion’ holy treasures I have some of Chukanov’s SmCo5 metal. I think I will dig it out and see if some of the recent ‘activation’ ideas make it work even better! The SmCo5 magnet is an anisotropic magnet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02498 Stable Higgs mode in anisotropic quantum magnets On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:06 PM Axil Axil wrote: > Science says that the Higgs field is like a pencil that is standing on its > point. Just the smallest perturbation can cause the Higgs field to fail. > This twisty nature of the Higgs field could be the mechanism behind all the > over-unity systems that have shown up over the years. The Higgs mode is a > new behavior seen in condensed matter systems. The “Higgs Mode,” otherwise > known as the Higgs amplitude mode, is seen as a close relative to the Higgs > boson. Since the Higgs boson was first theorized in the 1960s, the first > physical discovery came in 2012, and new quantum phenomena have since been > detected. In this post, we look at the new quantum state known as the Higgs > mode, the materials that the Higgs mode is found in and the Higgs Boson > itself. The Higgs amplitude mode is a quantum phenomenon seen in > materials and occurs when the magnetic field of its electrons fluctuate in > a way similar to that of a Higgs boson. The materials that exhibit this > phenomenon can do so because the crystal structure of the material enables > the electrons to behave in such a way. When the Higgs mode presents itself > in these materials, the material is often undergoing a quantum phase > transition. The Higgs mode has been detected in many different systems, > including in ultracold atomic gases, disordered superconductors, and > dimerized quantum magnets. However, in many cases, the Higgs mode is > unstable and decays. As such, it has only been reported in a handful of > publications. However, some systems can support these quantum effects > without decaying. The earliest experimental observation was seen in the > Raman scattering of a superconducting charge-density wave compound. The > Raman spectra found an unexpected peak that was later characterized as the > presence of a Higgs mode. In a system where the Higgs mode is presented, > the Higgs field in that system can be made to fail, in effect, the system > topples the Higgs field inside that system. When the Higgs field fails, the > forces of nature revert back to the way they were before the Higgs field > manifested in the universe. That time is about 10^-43 seconds after the big > bang. All sorts of weird and unworldly behaviors then developed in those > Higgs mode systems >
[Vo]:The Higgs mode
Science says that the Higgs field is like a pencil that is standing on its point. Just the smallest perturbation can cause the Higgs field to fail. This twisty nature of the Higgs field could be the mechanism behind all the over-unity systems that have shown up over the years. The Higgs mode is a new behavior seen in condensed matter systems. The “Higgs Mode,” otherwise known as the Higgs amplitude mode, is seen as a close relative to the Higgs boson. Since the Higgs boson was first theorized in the 1960s, the first physical discovery came in 2012, and new quantum phenomena have since been detected. In this post, we look at the new quantum state known as the Higgs mode, the materials that the Higgs mode is found in and the Higgs Boson itself. The Higgs amplitude mode is a quantum phenomenon seen in materials and occurs when the magnetic field of its electrons fluctuate in a way similar to that of a Higgs boson. The materials that exhibit this phenomenon can do so because the crystal structure of the material enables the electrons to behave in such a way. When the Higgs mode presents itself in these materials, the material is often undergoing a quantum phase transition. The Higgs mode has been detected in many different systems, including in ultracold atomic gases, disordered superconductors, and dimerized quantum magnets. However, in many cases, the Higgs mode is unstable and decays. As such, it has only been reported in a handful of publications. However, some systems can support these quantum effects without decaying. The earliest experimental observation was seen in the Raman scattering of a superconducting charge-density wave compound. The Raman spectra found an unexpected peak that was later characterized as the presence of a Higgs mode. In a system where the Higgs mode is presented, the Higgs field in that system can be made to fail, in effect, the system topples the Higgs field inside that system. When the Higgs field fails, the forces of nature revert back to the way they were before the Higgs field manifested in the universe. That time is about 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. All sorts of weird and unworldly behaviors then developed in those Higgs mode systems
