Lenz's law is the EM manifestation of Newton's 3rd law, conserving
momentum, and is simply the reciprocal / mutual self-induction of Faraday's
law - currents generate magnetic fields, and vice versa; an induced current
has its own magnetic field which reacts back with the applied field. It's
an
It was late and i didn't read it back.. i meant that the roles of both
Newton's 3rd law and Lenz's law in shoring up conservation of energy and
momentum is often under-appreciated - as evinced by the previous replies to
this thread, which prompted me to delurk after so many years..
Interia is
ame which must be considered before the anomally becomes
apparent - an N3 violation in a 2-body problem is all but meaningless.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gma
Fantastic, LOL wouldn't be surprised if they left out his battery
deliberately...
Some thoughts on their cell - why the need for dissimilar metals if not to
act as cathode and anode relative to an electrolyte? IOW, if the
electret's chemically inert then WHAT OTHER benefit might there be to the
It's not ZPE that causes uncertainty, but the other way around!
Due to the indeterminacy of wave function collapse there's a non-zero
chance of virtual photons of any wavelength precipitating out of vacuum at
any location that's the ZPE.
Consider the twin-plate Casimir effect - there's two
As a complete novice in all things LENR i've been following the
developments of recent years with interest and optimism, not least via the
very informative discussions here.
However i have one small area of interest that might be relevant, which i
haven't seen mentioned elsewhere:
It concerns
Iron / steel has much higher resistance than copper (so-called resistance
wire for domestic heating elements is
usually steel).
Resistance heating due to eddy currents is the only source of heat in
induction; domain flips are fueled by ambient phonon exchanges (the
principle exploit in MCE
Cool topic, cognitive science is one of my interests. I think that at the
stage we're at, the outstanding technical challenges aren't so much
quantitative as qualitative - we need to crack the Hard Problem, for an
emergent, bottom-up intelligence rather than a "brute forced" but top-down
Turing
tried
this, but it would also allow sampling the full spectrum along with the
IR.. there could even be revealing microwave or x-ray activity..
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can't
Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
impervious to heat damage... assuming the steel currently used for
chambers is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic
would would allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then
at least a via
My expectation is that they're applying anomolous voltage, since all
previous versions of Orbo depended upon tricking magnetic force into
performing free work, and they're claiming that the current tech works in
fundamentally the same way.
I've had no contact with them since the SKDB closed, but
their cell..
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> *From:* Vibrator
>
>
>
> Ø My expectation is that they're applying anomolous voltage, since all
> previous versions of Orbo depended upon tricking magnetic force into
> perfo
ges that varies, not the value of the interaction
itself.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Vibrator--
>
> Thanks for that clarification of ZPE.
>
> But how does Planck”s constant ( h ) come into the ZPE idea. Does that
> constant have any b
ed the drive? Did it simply
> vanish?
>
> This problem does not exist for normal rocket engines that expel a
> reaction mass. In that case, the energy is accounted for by the mass that
> is speeding rapidly away from the rocket.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message---
gt; wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its
> reference frame is? Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost
> of acceleration increases as
ecessarily mean it's wrong
of course, but should set alarm bells ringing..
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > That's conflating relativistic mass with r
terminology…. Your description is of course more popularly known as
> the ‘warp bubble’;)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2016 4:04 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
>
>
y, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)
>
>
> *From:* Vibrator !
>
>
>
> Ø So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it
> can't accelerate anywhere.
>
>
>
> That does not add up l
gt;
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)
>
>
> *From:* Vibrator !
>
>
>
> Ø So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it
> can't accelerate anywhere.
>
>
>
> T
Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases. Alternatively, we
could hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force
so does that
PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
&g
There were one or two replication attempts on the NASA forums following the
most recent positive, albeit inconclusive, results. But unfortunately it
suffers from a similar problem as LENR in that few folks have the cahoneys
or resources to play with live magnetrons. This is lab science, not
gt; aligned so not simply a gear like mechanism.
>
> >Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700
>
> >(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable,
> at least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is
> an axially polarised levitation then th
What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
polarised (poles on opposite faces or same face)?
Assuming axial magnetisation and that both are common permanent magnets,
the floating weight is levitated by reuplsion in apparent defiance of
Earnshaw's theorem (since, per
another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> ------ Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound s
wave mechanism.
>
> BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
&g
doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation and
counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
> pola
, which is then presumed as thermoelectric in origin even though it may
not be.
An optical reading is both more accurate, and less ambiguous in the
interpretation of results.
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM,
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)
;sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
>> their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
>> physics" - is surely redundant;
ould violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?
>>
>
> With the engine t
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical
symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our
interest.
Curl and divergence of B are zero. Maxwell's own metaphor of "vortices"
for dipoles is literally shown to be inaccurate by the theory. Likewise,
there is no such thing as "field lines" inherent to the field, and their
formation is purely a feedback effect from dynamically self-organising
dipole
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-theoretical-quark-fusion-powerful-hydrogen.html
I've found Bessler's gain principle. The energy density's obviously
'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
variables of the input /
> How can anyone validate when there is no data from a five year old
> system?What is claimed for the device? Where is a video of the unit
> running?
>
> --
> *From:* Vibrator !
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 3, 2018 11:05 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo
ey claimed it would do...
>
> http://rarenergia.com.br/
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> On 31/05/2018 18:27, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> I've found Bessler's gain principle. The energy density's obviously
>> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraint
PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>
> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty. None of the uni's
> are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>
> Perhaps you could help refine my template
t;>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of so
18 5:33 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>
> No, no, no.
>
> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> Crimes?
>
> On F
ng an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
> quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new
> concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics.
>
>
>
:25 PM, John Shop wrote:
> On 4/06/2018 11:19 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> . . .
> The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two
> inertias, which nonetheless only accelerates one of them.
>
> This I suggest is your problem. If you apply a for
with of course,
but still, waste not want not..
(before anyone dives overboard the above interaction's not the one i'm
claiming to have successfully implemented)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:18 PM, John Shop wrote:
> On 5/06/2018 12:37 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> Consider a 1 kg weight, connected by
accelerating", and now nobody will believe me and it's so unfair etc.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Shop wrote:
> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> . . .
> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
> ostensible purpose. Batteries and m
m in the opposite direction.
>
> I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
> the photon to be coming from.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop wrote:
>
>> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>>
>> . . .
>>
eek 'touch wood'. Jinx.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone!
>
> As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live
> on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. S
Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone!
As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live
on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. Still, that's no reason to
bury it like Bessler did. And we all benefit from the results, so long
e
invisible pink unicorn. It is only AFTER trying everything else that i've
come to seek the wisdoms of the Vorts..
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> I've always been of the same opinion... up till now.
>
> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
. Try the toy industry.
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> @John - cheers mate, like i say, i have indisputable proof-positive
>> already, it's just a question of what the hell to do with it. Who to show
>> it to, if i also want some kind of, umm,
ion: Ideally film the construction
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi vibrator. The "right" people are hard to fine.
>>>>
>>>> Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE
I've always been of the same opinion... up till now.
The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its ostensible
purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
Suppose you surround your build with meters. Meters for everything.
Meters FOR the meters. All cross-referencing
.. but rushing
things is almost certain to.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:30 AM, wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 1 Jun 2018 04:01:20 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> We humans use about 500 quad/yr of energy. At that rate it would take 5
> trillion
> years to use all the kinetic
with it by the w/e i'll post it up here, though i'm setting my
expectations low, just as you are..
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:20 AM, John Shop wrote:
> On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
> incomplete.
>
> All
.
Seriously, it is nothing less than proof positive - comprehensive,
definitive, unassailable.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:09 PM, John Berry wrote:
> Vibrator, do you have a machine that generates energy, a device that
> powers itself?
>
> If so, then yes it is beyond question that y
ed by N3. Effective violations of the 3rd law 'create' mechanical
energy, by raising momentum on the cheap! The value of that momentum
however remains a standard function of V^2 in the static frame, hence
collect underpants and profit.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 6:22 AM, John Shop wrote:
> On
@Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
'remanence' of the Higgs field? Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
who am i to talk..
The effect i'm using is utterly pedestrian and unremarkable in every way,
except for the net result. It really is just a matter of
@Chris
You're kind of on the right track, if not quite for the right reasons yet,
but yes, i've concluded i ought to make a full disclosure within a few days.
I'd wanted to 'do the right thing' and minimise the chances of causing
harm, also giving UK academia first dibs. No one's taken the bait
hat they're supposed to, without fail, in both time and space..
but especially with regards to time.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote:
> Vibrator, there are a number of claims involving violation of CoM and CoE,
> and it involves an asymmetry in the rate a acceleration/
ssler case, to the humiliation of going off half-cocked.
This is a no-takesy backsies, adamant and unapologetic claim of mechanical
OU, certain and unconditional.
It would have to be one truly-committed sociology experiment, don't you
think..?
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:51 AM, wrote:
> In reply
The motion is powered by the applied current, explained in the synopsis.
Ie. input energy is converting to work. The anisotropy is a material,
structural or reactive property, not a fundamental field property.
Obviously there is chiralty and 'handedness' in nature, but what i was
attempting to
down
there, and i am partial to the notion of an active vacuum.. but all angels
and pinheads to me i'm afraid..
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems Vortex-l has a new voice in Vibrator!. It fits nicely with the
> cur
The torque is undoubtedly a thermal / radiative asymmetry between upper
(warmer) and lower (cooler) sides of the levitated sphere.
However even if it's due to the random, turbulent airflow caused by the
temperature gradient and evaporation, it's rectifying to consistent
momentum the same way a
ting up and taking
notice.. this is NOT some prank.. it's a sincere "alert!" & request for
backup..
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:44 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> Hi John, and thank you so much for taking an interest!
>
> The input energy to the motors is being logged in terms of t
t; wrote:
> Wrong. I fear I could never understand Vibrator.
> You are right about Not the Steorn Forum. Cynics all, apart from Tim
>
> I wonder how Shawn (the real spelling on his birth certificate
> according to the Alesbury registrar) is getting on.
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 13:37,
to error - no one will be more surprised than me if
this turns out to be legit - but all indications so far are that it is!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:37 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:06 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to bump my own
It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince
Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error.
Some kind of resolution!
It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people
here with a good grasp of classical physics - and
lated
in real-time, in duplicate - independently by me (using the above standard
equations), as well as by the sim's own low-level calculus.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 1:19 AM Dave Roberson wrote:
> Vibrator, I am confident that if you confine your concept to a closed
> system that both
speed
> of twice the original rotation rate. I suspect that this action takes
> exactly the 8J that gets added to the system giving a total of 16 after
> this action. Moving the orbiting masses to their respective orbiting
> centres requires no net energy.
>
> On 5/02/2019 11:03 am, John
.
Suffice to say if real, it ain't dolphin-friendly.. but does it even work?
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:12 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> Magic Roundabout
>
>
> You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
> your hands.
>
> Beginning with both axes parall
Magic Roundabout
You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
your hands.
Beginning with both axes parallel, spin that baby up..
..then rotate its axis 90° into the perpendicular plane. This exerts a
precessional torque, which is earthed through the turntable's
" a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to 133%."
eek i meant "3 to 150%", duh, need slepp..
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:55 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> ..on 2nd thoughts, isn't it a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to
> 133%..
>
> And MoI's obviously s
on't survive rotation into perpendicular planes, and i'm
still an idiot..
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:44 AM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ride carefully.
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 06:58, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> " a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to 1
priestess of the great lord Anumpti Nunu's toothbrush (or else who
are the messages coming from?).
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:15 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> LOL some years ago i had an interesting discussion re. 'monopoles' on
> PhysOrg:
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-syn
LOL some years ago i had an interesting discussion re. 'monopoles' on
PhysOrg:
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-synthetic-magnetic-monopole-years.html
...suffice to say, colour me skeptical.. ;)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Axil:
>
> Even if you post this
Found an interesting paper last night - moreso in its assumptions, than
conclusions - but i thought it worth sharing, in relation to my current
state of progress..
I'd been thinking about the exploit i'm chasing down; to recap, as we all
know, gravitational potential energy (GPE) is given by
White elephants all round. And it's open
research you're being invited to review.. to assist with, even..
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:38 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
> What does Grimer think? I believe he's on that list.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:26 AM Vibrator ! wro
Thank you - but sorry, what's "MEP"?
Last night i fully resolved the gain principle - it WASN'T caused by the
spin and brake cycles sinking counter-momentum to gravity as intended.
The basis of the system is an interaction that moves a pair of masses
across the diameter of a rotating axis,
The answer is N3 - and the same reason crashing a car into a concrete wall
is twice as severe as a head-on collision of equal relative velocity, since
it's the vehicles' speeds relative to the ground that enumerates and
underwrites the value of 'velocity' in the KE equation, not their speed
..rather than trying to re-summarise the whole thing here, anyone
interested should review my current thread on the BWF; currently looking
at 471 Joules in, for 854 Joules out, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.4
Joules, from this interaction:
https://i.ibb.co/BPVMtbV/Fully-Active-low-res.gif
Making no assumptions as to the existence or nature of time and space, we
can reduce their defining properties to more fundamental propositions:
• there are information processors (us)
• thus there is, implicitly, 'information', the actual substance and
format of which is determined by our
Probably been mooted before; but could the anomalous acceleration be due to
outgassing of hydrinos?
..dropped the video link there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1=341Yk4k51uY=emb_logo
Watching this later, right up my street thanks..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough
Doh! Miles away.. (besides, could've had Josiah Gibbs)..
'Electret' - that was the word - but yep, something a bit different here..
albeit still amenable to calorimetry i should think.
"Quote: A subthreshold swing is demonstrated below the thermal limit in an
electrochemical cell that mimics a gate-to-channel circuit cell in a FeFET,
surpassing the
If self-oscillation is phonon-driven - and also forms the source gradient -
then it's an effective 2LoT violation.
Doesn't rule out an EM / ZPE source of course, but Occam would suggest
that's redundant..
So, unlike Steorn's ferro-electric caps or whatever it was they were doing
(foggy now)..
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
FWIW momentum is conserved (time-invariant), whereas conservation of energy
is a consequence of CoM..
The real meat and potatoes here is that any 'energy' derivation always has
an equivalent metric comprised of the same components as momentum, just
evolving differently (ie. mV compared to ½mV²) -
> Cars are structurally complex. Just consider rubber balls of equal size and
> use their deformation as a measure of "damage". If the two rubber balls
> move towards each other they will deform an equal amount when they collide.
> If one rubber ball is resting against a massive wall and the other
..i'll just repeat the same point here i made at ECW; the KE / momentum
derivations from the tracks alone proceed on an assumption of CoE and CoM,
hence the findings of stupendous mass / energies / superluminal values of
'V'.
Yet surely a saner explanation is that, rather than burning off a
This IS interesting, good find..!
So once again, a common theme seems to be that the experimental conditions
focus energy onto electrons at small spatiotemporal scales, causing exotic
quantum states. Note in section 5 tho it is suggested that the density /
weight of the material is integral to
In light of Rossi's apparent lead i'd be looking at the possibility of
spontaneous formation of novel condensates. The D2 diatomic molecule being
a boson presents an obvious soft target for aligning spins to cohere into
shared lower-energy quantum states, the different magnetic moments of the
Hi Bob, cheers for the thoughts but it obvs wasn't really a serious
exercise - the bosonic nature of the D2 molecule and nucleus, along with
the high magnetic moment of Ni as a potential short-range polarising factor
just seemed to offer up a possibly-fertile axis of coherence; scaling up
might
The La Palma eruption continues to surprise and confound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhfSNFAUuk
..no longer a case of guesstimating the stored potential energy, so much as
the ongoing processes apparently replenishing it.
What's been bugging me for some time is that OU solutions solve
> His failures are waaay past 'E' in the alphabet.
..well as someone up to hexadecimal figures i maybe have a low bar;
whatevs, SOMETHING's going down next Thursday so don't forget to cast a
weary eye that way even if you're not stocking up on popcorn (me neither,
honestly).
One or two
The first law is specifically framed in terms of 'closed systems', yet what
constitutes full thermodynamic enclosure is always open to question.
Fundamentally, the system has to be open to a fundamental force constant,
and time. That could be the EM force constant, alpha, or the gravitational
The ARV story is chaff; misdirection to fill the void with something
semi-plausible, at least to some degree of consistency, yet whilst only
providing bumsteer. The UFO equivalent of red mercury. Visitors' craft
are obviously surrounded by some kind of glowing orb phenomenon, commonly
assumed to
> Think of little magnets arranged end to end. NSNSNS etc. Not only do they
> attract but the field is cumulative, and as it
> get stronger it "convinces" other magnets to align the same way.
Variability of domain pinning strengths (individual domain wall
coercivities) is one cause of Sv per
The guy's claiming that induced B in 'electrical steel' climbs to 500% of
applied H.
He's basically claiming runaway self-induction, apparently as an inherent
property of this material.
So what to make of it? Applying an H field induces a B field, giving their
combined field density M, or net
y
> in W3.
>
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 01:59, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly
>> show tethered pairs:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
>>
>> https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_m
smopolitan mix of local techno-cultures.. but one,
particular guest, that we have.
And right now, they seem very interested in us indeed.. (woo-wavy hands)
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:44 PM Vibrator ! wrote:
> > Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the
> &
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
