[Vo]:The Norway Spiral
Was not a stray rocket test. It was a test of a powerful torsion weapon. Or so says Hoagland: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-Message.htm Terry
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
The problem is solved. Brilliant Horrace. Frank
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
I liked what you did. It gave a first approximation very good answer. Now the next thing I have been trying to get a grip on is, What is the phonon frequency of the dissolved hydrogen in a cold fusion palladium electrode? I don't even know what the restraints are. Does is move in a group and what then is M? Were is it attached and what then is K. Any ideas. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
2009/12/30 fznidar...@aol.com: I liked what you did. It gave a first approximation very good answer. Now the next thing I have been trying to get a grip on is, What is the phonon frequency of the dissolved hydrogen in a cold fusion palladium electrode? Haven't followed his calculation closely but I think this is what Horace (one 'r') calculated. BTW, it would be interesting to know the adsorbed (as opposed to absorbed) D phonon frequency too, since the surface tetrahedral sites are probably where things happen (deeper trapping potential, corresponding to a higher electron density, which is useful whatever the mechanism at play: electron capture, DD fusion... Michel I don't even know what the restraints are. Does is move in a group and what then is M? Were is it attached and what then is K. Any ideas. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
On Dec 30, 2009, at 5:59 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I liked what you did. It gave a first approximation very good answer. Now the next thing I have been trying to get a grip on is, What is the phonon frequency of the dissolved hydrogen in a cold fusion palladium electrode? I don't even know what the restraints are. Does is move in a group and what then is M? Were is it attached and what then is K. Any ideas. Frank Z The lattice sites occupied by the hydrogen are points of lowest potential between lattice atoms, e.g. tetrahedral sites. The value of k varies with the speed of sound in the lattice and thus temperature and other factors. The presence of hydrogen itself affects this, i.e. the loading phase. Much more important than any spring constant is the actual hydrogen *tunneling* hopping rate. This is a very complex subject. The best way to get a feel for it is to read Hydrogen in Metals III. See: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dapsfield- keywords=hydrogen+in+metals+IIIx=0y=0 http://tinyurl.com/y9qyzmt There are some good prices on used ones. I bought mine many years ago at retail. Sigh. In any case, I was led inexorably to a different model of how cold fusion comes about. That model is described here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf That only scratches the surface. There is much more to come. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting?
From: Terry Blanton Sounds like a Fastwalker. Aurora? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Steorn Replication
I find this video to be interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_gkxfX98as When the power to the controller is switched off, no induction is measured in the stator coils. Why? Isn't this how a generator works? By moving a magnetic field across a conductor, don't we get induction, and hence, electricity? Craig (Houston)
[Vo]:American Chemical Society March 2010 meeting cold fusion program
[News item] The American Chemical Society (ACS) Spring 2010 National Meeting Exposition will be held in San Francisco, California, March 21 - 25, 2010. The cold fusion session at this year's conference includes 61 abstracts. Forty six papers will be presented in four sessions over two days, sessions: ENVR014, ENVR049, ENVR050 and ENVR051. Fifteen papers will be shown in poster sessions. Here is a letter from the session organizer, Jan Marwan, and a copy of the program: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ACSMarch2010program.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ACSMarch2010program.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
I see where my mistake was now that I read the work of Horrace. It was in the elastic constant K. I just used the electrical force on the proton and the lattice spacing to compute the elastic constant. I did not factor in that total force on a stationary proton is zero. I needed to calculate the force on a slightly displaced proton as a subtraction of opposing forces. You have showed me the way. Now what is the difference between the palladium and the dissolved deuterium lattice vibrations? They are, I believe, similar in frequency. The phase may be the big difference. The adjacent lattice vibrations at the shortest wavelengths are 180 deg out of phase. The entire dissolved hydrogen lattice my be vibrating in phase as a single quantum system. I believe that cold fusion is an affect of a big difference in the way dissolved hydrogen vibrates. What do you think? Horrace, did you go back to school or what? Your work is orders of magnitude better than it was a few short years ago. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
Here are two more replications: http://www.youtube.com/user/m1a9r9s9#p/u/2/nDABKqdB538 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGPRoHgz8Rw The first link shows no apparent current increase as the speed of the rotor picks up, and tends to really display the effect that is perplexing all of these people. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
Here is the same unit turned by hand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xungPOZtIo Setting aside the issue of over unity or free energy, what does the 'zero' meter reading mean ? a violation lenz law? a faulty meter? or meter leads located at the wrong place? Harry - Original Message From: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 11:45:30 AM Subject: [Vo]:Steorn Replication I find this video to be interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_gkxfX98as When the power to the controller is switched off, no induction is measured in the stator coils. Why? Isn't this how a generator works? By moving a magnetic field across a conductor, don't we get induction, and hence, electricity? Craig (Houston) __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting?
http://www.fastwalkers.com/ On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From: Terry Blanton Sounds like a Fastwalker. Aurora? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
What happens when two solenoids wound oppositely pass through a common magnetic field if you tie the conductors together? Terry On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: I find this video to be interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_gkxfX98as When the power to the controller is switched off, no induction is measured in the stator coils. Why? Isn't this how a generator works? By moving a magnetic field across a conductor, don't we get induction, and hence, electricity? Craig (Houston)
RE: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting?
We don't get many sightings out here, we're a distinct dull spot on the UFO observation map. This is the my first sighting spanning 40 years here of something having a real chance of being anomalous. By coincidence we have the chief of state vacationing here, and some of the more conventional rings of security are easily seen. The ships offshore, military flights in patterns not usually flown, etc. I've read of accounts and seen the videos of anomalous things lurking on the periphery of military operations, but it's highly speculative that it might have had anything to do with the sighting. I still have to run the numbers, and I wanted to get outside to re-check and identify the stars near its path, but it was overcast last night. I did find some useful astronomy websites, found out that the upper limb of the sun (including that atmospheric distortion margin) was 13.84 degrees below the horizon at the time, a bit after official marine twilight (pretty dark). R. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting? From: Terry Blanton Sounds like a Fastwalker. Aurora? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
On Dec 30, 2009, at 8:01 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I see where my mistake was now that I read the work of Horrace. It was in the elastic constant K. I just used the electrical force on the proton and the lattice spacing to compute the elastic constant. I did not factor in that total force on a stationary proton is zero. I needed to calculate the force on a slightly displaced proton as a subtraction of opposing forces. You have showed me the way. Now what is the difference between the palladium and the dissolved deuterium lattice vibrations? They are, I believe, similar in frequency. The phase may be the big difference. The adjacent lattice vibrations at the shortest wavelengths are 180 deg out of phase. I already gave this approach to computing (Pd) lattice vibrations: The deuterons actually are screened from each other by lattice electrons. They exist in lattice potential wells. They essentially move at lattice speeds due to lattice vibrations, except when tunneling between lattice sites. These lattice vibrations might be considered to achieve resonance when lambda = N * 2 * (lattice constant), which for Pd is 7.78x10^-10 m. The resonant frequency is given by: f = v / lambda where v is the speed of sound in the medium, or 3070 m/s, so: f = ( 3070 m/s) / (7.78x10^-10 m) = 3.946 x 10^12 Hz which is not far off from the other frequency I gave, which was computed from the deuteron 1 dimensional mechanical resonance. The lattice sites occupied by the hydrogen are points of lowest potential between lattice atoms, e.g. tetrahedral sites. The value of k varies with the speed of sound in the lattice and thus temperature and other factors. The presence of hydrogen itself affects this, i.e. the loading phase. The problem is the vibrations of the hydrogen and the PD vary because the forces are non-linear. In other words k is a function of x. Still, I think the above is very much on the wrong track. The entire dissolved hydrogen lattice my be vibrating in phase as a single quantum system. Well, here is a good hint for you. The most thoroughly linked system is the electron system. The nuclei are rigidly enclosed in electron cages. The cages weigh 3 orders of magnitudes less than the nuclei. It is the *cages* that move in unison. If there is any collection of things in the lattice that are powerfully coupled it is the *electrons*. It is primarily the electrons that respond to external stimuli, such as sound or x-rays. What happens when the electron cages move, and the nuclei are hence moved out of the locus of the center of charge, is the electron flux through the nuclei momentarily increases. The lumbering nuclei comparatively slowly respond with motion. Also of interest is the imbedded nano-particle. It's electron cage is small and somewhat disconnected from the overall lattice. It responds to external stimuli somewhat independently of the overall lattice. This is the realm between the quantum and the macro worlds. The nuclei of a nano-particle are more likely to move in unison, and thus the relative motion is highly suppressed unless there is extreme stimulation. The phonon energies are quantized, so all the movements of the electron cage across the nano-particle tend to be in unison. All the phonon exchanges are quantized to E = (N + 1/2)*h*f. The nuclei thus experience much less motion than the electrons for a given quantum of exchange. This tends to keep the forces on the nuclei in unison, and all relative nucleus motion in unison. This has the obvious makings for nuclear condensate wavefunctions, and Bose condensate fusion. It also provides the perfect makings for *simultaneous* deflated state hydrogen, and thus multi-body heavy element transmutation LENR. I believe that cold fusion is an affect of a big difference in the way dissolved hydrogen vibrates. What do you think? I disagree. I think the focus on coordinated lattice nucleus vibration and ordinary atomic diffusion rates (as opposed to hydrogen diffusion by *tunneling* rates, a separate variable) is a blunder of major proportions, and has slowed down development in the field. Any fusion that occurred purely as a result of lattice vibrations would have the same branching ratios as hot fusion. Such a kinetics based system would have little prospect of explaining heavy element LENR. Much work has been done on this basis for 20 years with nominal progress. I'm hoping the deflation fusion model will stimulate some improved experimental approaches. Horrace, did you go back to school or what? Unfortunately no. Your work is orders of magnitude better than it was a few short years ago. Thanks, but maybe that is just a mirage. Every day is a learning and re-learning experience. I'm a bit up on CF right now. I've forgotten about all I know about gravity or
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
Setting aside the issue of over unity or free energy, what does the 'zero' meter reading mean ? a violation lenz law? a faulty meter? or meter leads located at the wrong place? Are you implying that the amp meter is not connected correctly? If so, why would the current increase at low RPM. His explanation, that the circuit is open for a longer period of time, makes more sense.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What happens when two solenoids wound oppositely pass through a common magnetic field if you tie the conductors together? I suspect you would get a zero reading, but how is that relevant to this demonstration?
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
If you pass a plane through the toroidal inductor, you will see that, in cross section, piecewise it's the same effect. Terry On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What happens when two solenoids wound oppositely pass through a common magnetic field if you tie the conductors together? I suspect you would get a zero reading, but how is that relevant to this demonstration?
Re: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting?
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Rick Monteverde r...@highsurf.com wrote: We don't get many sightings out here, we're a distinct dull spot on the UFO observation map. Someone searching for Obama's birth certificate? Terry
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
2009/12/29 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: OK, vorticians. This is could be an important paper and topic, so let me add one more point of clarification to Michel Jullian's point about the heat of combustion of hydrogen, compared to the anomalous loading heat of Kitamura's claim. Michel correctly finds that if you only look at one-half of the reaction, and ignore the mass of the end product, then what we have is: (294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = ~1.5 electron volts/amu based on hydrogen I didn't ignore anything, I converted the energy released by the reaction of D2O formation (all two halves of the reaction ;) from a per D2O mole basis to a per D atom basis, the same basis Kitamura used for his 2 eV value, and the same basis you used for your 0.5 eV value presumably, since you compared it with Kitamura's. Begin Fish drowning This is the energy released relative to initial hydrogen mass, but that might assume that oxygen is unnecessary, if you leave it out. One should take the mass of O2 into consideration for the comparison with reversible hydride loading. ERGO. It would have been clearer back a few posts ago - if I had broken the comparison down this way. The steam from hydrogen combustion will have a molecular wt of 18 amu per hot molecule. The heat of combustion of the two hydrogen atoms is ~3+ eV in total. The resultant energy per amu of the steam, therefore, is 3/18 or .16 eV per amu of combustion end product. When we compare that energy per mass of combustion product - with the Kitamura reaction of hydrogen which has been reversibly loaded into a metal matrix, and then released, then we find that the amu of the end product is still about one since there is/was no permanent bond. The thermal energy released, according to Kitamura is ~2 eV, so the eV per amu is about a *ten to one ratio,* when the energy of the hydride bond is deducted - compared to hydrogen combustion (by mass of all non-renewable reactants). End Fish drowning (those who understand French, see http://www.linternaute.com/expression/langue-francaise/450/noyer-le-poisson/) Come on my dear Jones, a little more work and you will find that your 0.5 eV is correct for some thing or other I am sure ;-) Next big issue. What is the real hydride bond energy for Pd? There is a chart here (Fig 3): http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/79/1/012028/jpconf7_79_012028.pdf?request-id=e4195775-a6d5-4d5f-83b9-da98912aa8c1 Interesting paper, thanks for the pointer! It appears that the bond energy for Pd varies between .9 eV and a negative value, depending of a number of variables. The bond is field influenced, which could be important. From the chart - an average value appears to be less than .5 eV. However, the indication is that it could be much lower. Therefore, if Kitamura were correct on the heat energy (which I am beginning to doubt), then this kind of iterative recycling of hydrogen would be a window of opportunity for gainfulness, since the spread is very large. The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is interested) , which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO. The surface binding energy is of course relevant for putative LENRs occurring there! Michel
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
If you pass a plane through the toroidal inductor, you will see that, in cross section, piecewise it's the same effect. I see... thanks. But doesn't that prove his point, though, that if there is no reverse induction, then the circuits are independent? But, even if they are independent, this would not preclude a relationship between the current needed to depolarize the magnetic conductor in the stator, and the amount of force you could get from using that same piece of conductor to attract a permanent magnet. Perhaps the relationship would always ensure that you couldn't gain energy from the system. In any case, this issue should be resolved fairly quickly from this point, with several different people working on what looks to be a simple task. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Michel * The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is interested) which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO. By all means - we are very interested, since this is really one of the two important points left to be decided. And providing this reference in an unequivocal way (i.e. specifically wrt hydrogen and palladium) would salvage your other comments out of the category of fishy. Therefore, we eagerly await your (hopefully authoritative) reference, since the much higher surface binding attribute as you claim, is a bit counter-intuitive; and without it we have a compelling set of circumstances for expanding the importance of the putative anomaly - which as Terry opined, might possibly be related to nascent hydrogen. The next issue, of course, is whether or not the 2 eV per atom loading heat of Kitamura is accurate and reproducible by others. That is where I suspect the problem will be found. Side note: as many of us are aware, hydrogen comes off of bulk palladium easily enough that it can be, and once was, once used as a cigarette lighter (which presumably did not require much input to ignite - other than a spark) but was surely an expensive indulgence. As I recall - and a brief googling confirms, the so-called Doebereiner cigarette lighter from the 1800's was used by early CF skeptics to explain away the excess heat of the PF effect, since it apparently got quite hot following a hydrogen recharge. Problem is - they apparently never checked the complete thermodynamic balance of the Doebereiner effect . at least there is no record of that which I can find. Is it presumptive to suggest, given Kitamura, that the very same effect used by skeptics to try to disprove CF could instead point to another, and perhaps more usable anomaly? Nah, probably not. But it would be one great way to convert palladium into irony ;-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
At 12:14 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote: Here are two more replications: The first link shows no apparent current increase as the speed of the rotor picks up, and tends to really display the effect that is perplexing all of these people. http://www.youtube.com/user/m1a9r9s9#p/u/2/nDABKqdB538 You have got to be kidding. He uses a 5 amp analog meter to show a stated operating current, coil turned on, of 100 mA. It's hardly visible. The demonstration shows the claimed basic effect, which is a no-brainer: switching on the toroid current quenches the magnetic attraction toroid core for the permanent magnets mounted on the rotor. Thus the rotor accelerates. Where does the energy being stored in the rotor angular momentum come from? The demonstration is unable to show if there is any significant increase or decrease in current. It's just an analog meter, and way, way too insensitive. Further, I would not expect, even with a more sensitive meter, any visible change in current as the rotor speed varies, except when it gets very slow, you would see the coil current switching on and off. Rather, the key to the effect is the transitions. It is the switching of the response of the toroid to the permanent magnets that produces the acceleration of the rotor. Steady-state on, the rotor is freewheeling. Constant current, independent of rotor speed. Steady-state off, likewise, no effect on current (zero) from rotor speed. It's crazy to expect a visible change in steady-state current from rotor speed. But it is the transitions that are the issue. What happens during transition? It is during this time that an interaction between rotor velocity and current exists. Basically, the electronics, such as they are, are switching on and off a response to a magnetic field. This takes energy. Standard overall theory would predict that the energy it takes is greater than or equal to, but never less than, the energy increase in the rotor. And, since the energy it takes to accelerate a rotor like that, slowly, is quite small compared to the power consumption of the coil, it only takes a small jolt, each time the magnet passes the coil, to cause acceleration. And then this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGPRoHgz8Rw Nice demo. Notice the neon bulb lighting up, apparently with each shutdown of current to the coil. That's back-emf, as he notes. Lots of it, the bulb is a voltage-limiter, I'd expect, what, 65V? Notice that the bearing isn't low friction, the rotor slows down when the current is shut off. That high back-EMF will be associated with a current spike. That current spike, forgive me if I'm wrong, could cause a reversed magnetic field, to repel the permanent magnet as it moves away from the core. In any case, to show that there is some anomaly here would take far more sophisticated instrumentation, and might even be very difficult, since the amount of energy necessary to produce the observed acceleration is much less than what is being dumped through the coil with each cycle. It would only take a small effect, such as the repulsion I mention as a possibility, to cause acceleration. And I'm not satisfied with this explanation of mine. The basic cause of the acceleration is the attraction of the permanent magnet for the core. That attraction is switched off by the electronics, at a critical time, presumably the ideal point to switch it off is as the rotor magnet passes the ferrite core. how much power does it take to switch off the ferrite's attraction? Apparently quite a lot, and it must stay off for the entire time until the magnet begins to approach the next attractive core. This seems horribly inefficient, but that's beside the point. I've seen no evidence or analysis that actually considers the obviously relevant effects. The claim of no back EMF is obviously wrong. If I'm correct, they had a clamping diode in the Steorn demo to dump the back EMF current, back to the battery, providing a minor recovery of energy. Hand-waving. Suppose you have a magnet in your hand and you wave it. Wave it at the right time, and you could accelerate the rotor. But that process, action vs. reaction, would cause drag on your hand-waving. Not necessarily much, it might be imperceptible with each wave. But it only needs to be just a little to cause rotor acceleration. It is the high inefficiency, in fact, that makes it difficult to detect and measure the effect.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
At 12:15 PM 12/30/2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Here is the same unit turned by hand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xungPOZtIo Setting aside the issue of over unity or free energy, what does the 'zero' meter reading mean ? a violation lenz law? a faulty meter? or meter leads located at the wrong place? It means a 5 A meter being used to show a 100 mA steady-state current. Look at the label on the meter! It looks to me like the current might not even be 100 mA, I didn't see any change at all, but I might have overlooked it. I wasted enough time looking at that demo as it was. Like, duh! I get it! Steorn is running a school to teach people how to make totally stupid demonstrations that obfuscate the issues. It could be quite a useful skill, if you are planning on working on over-unity devices. I'm sure that there are lots of people wanting to know how they do it.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
At 01:13 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote: Setting aside the issue of over unity or free energy, what does the 'zero' meter reading mean ? a violation lenz law? a faulty meter? or meter leads located at the wrong place? Are you implying that the amp meter is not connected correctly? If so, why would the current increase at low RPM. His explanation, that the circuit is open for a longer period of time, makes more sense. I see no sign that it's connected incorrectly, but ... it's entirely the wrong meter for the task. Actually, the circuit is closed for the same time, I'd assume, except for a response time factor. When the rotation is very slow, though, you would see the on current distinct from the off current (zero). On that meter, the tiniest twitch. Assuming immediate response, the circuit is closed, current running, for a time dependent upon the angular position of sensors that turn it on and turn it off. The duty cycle will be constant, independent of rotation speed, only the frequency will change. But this neglects what happens during the transitions.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
Craig, I don't think you get that the demonstrations show almost nothing, except that the second video you pointed to conclusively refutes the claim of no back-EMF, and quite visually, with the blinking of that neon bulb, which, as I recall, requires about 65 volts to initiate, the bulb then becomes low-resistance, dumping the back-EMF current (into the power source, I think, you can see the schematic provided) until the current falls below a keep-alive value, much lower. That bulb can dump a few watts of power, as I recall. Steorn used a diode, I believe, which will do the same thing, but at lower voltage, and not visibly.
RE: [Vo]:The Norway Spiral
More like torsion on a powerful weapon, but hey - at least he was right about that 19.5 degree latitude for planetary swirls, volcanoes, sunspots, etc. R. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:14 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:The Norway Spiral Was not a stray rocket test. It was a test of a powerful torsion weapon. Or so says Hoagland: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-Message.htm Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
On 12/30/2009 03:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:14 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote: Here are two more replications: The first link shows no apparent current increase as the speed of the rotor picks up, and tends to really display the effect that is perplexing all of these people. http://www.youtube.com/user/m1a9r9s9#p/u/2/nDABKqdB538 Rather, the key to the effect is the transitions. It is the switching of the response of the toroid to the permanent magnets that produces the acceleration of the rotor. Steady-state on, the rotor is freewheeling. Constant current, independent of rotor speed. Steady-state off, likewise, no effect on current (zero) from rotor speed. Wait -- after reading your descriptions (and others), if I understand what the descriptions describe, it looks like the key is somewhere else. Look at what we've got: We have a magnetic core in a coil, and a separate movable magnet, which can move past the core/coil combination. Switch the coil on, the field of the core is canceled. A while later, switch it off, the field in the core comes back. You put energy in when you switch it on, you get it back when you switch it off; to the extent that the system gets warm in between you get back less than you put in. Fine, but that's not where the motor part comes in. The motor part is the interaction between the other magnet and the coil. The full system is apparently this: 1) A magnet moves close to the magnetic core. It's attracted to the core, so it gains mechanical energy during this phase. 2) At closest approach, the coil turns on, energy goes into the system, and the core is quenched. 3) The magnet moves away from the core AND coil. Since the field of the core is canceled, this apparently takes no work. 4) At maximum separation the coil is turned off. The only interaction between a live electrical circuit and a physical object on which it can do work is in step (3). In that step, the coil is energized in such a way that it would REPEL the magnet, which is moving away from it. Think about it -- the core attracts the other magnet, and the coil is canceling that attraction, so the coil is repelling the other magnet. In essence, the coil is pushing the magnet away, working against the attractive force of the coil. So, the phase where work is being done by the battery is the phase when the coil is energized and the magnet and coil are moving apart. To see where and how much energy is being pumped into the system to do useful work, look at the induced voltage in the coil during that phase. Say it again, louder: Linear superposition! Sure, the magnetization of the core changes, but to a very large extent, when you cancel the field of the core, you're looking at the coil and core fields adding linearly. The field of the coil is still there, still interacting with the environment, but it's hidden by the superposed field of the core.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
At 04:37 PM 12/30/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 12/30/2009 03:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:14 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote: Here are two more replications: The first link shows no apparent current increase as the speed of the rotor picks up, and tends to really display the effect that is perplexing all of these people. http://www.youtube.com/user/m1a9r9s9#p/u/2/nDABKqdB538 Rather, the key to the effect is the transitions. It is the switching of the response of the toroid to the permanent magnets that produces the acceleration of the rotor. Steady-state on, the rotor is freewheeling. Constant current, independent of rotor speed. Steady-state off, likewise, no effect on current (zero) from rotor speed. Wait -- after reading your descriptions (and others), if I understand what the descriptions describe, it looks like the key is somewhere else. Depends on key to what. But sure, I like Mr. Lawrence's explanation, in some ways. But I'm not sure it's accurate yet. Look at what we've got: We have a magnetic core in a coil, and a separate movable magnet, which can move past the core/coil combination. Ferrite core. (I'm very weak in this field, something whacked me over the head when the right-hand rule was introduced. Right hand? Why right hand? Does the universe have something against lefties? Apparently!) Characteristic of ferrites: the magnetic field can be easily reversed with relatively low energy losses as heat. Switch the coil on, the field of the core is canceled. A while later, switch it off, the field in the core comes back. Right. You put energy in when you switch it on, you get it back when you switch it off; to the extent that the system gets warm in between you get back less than you put in. Yes, the back-EMF represents getting the energy back as the magnetic field collapses. Collapse it quickly, the voltage can go very high, burning out the switches, unless you dump enough current that the voltage doesn't rise that high. However, note, it only takes a certain amount of current to establish the toriod magnetic field that cancels the ferrite's field. Only that energy, stored in setting up the toroid field, is returned when shutting the thing off. The current, however, must be continuous during the freewheeling phase, or else the ferrite will retard the rotation of the rotor, by attracting the permanent magnet in the reverse direction, slowing the rotor down. That energy is not going to be recovered, it does not get stored in the rotation, it is pure heat loss. Fine, but that's not where the motor part comes in. The motor part is the interaction between the other magnet and the coil. The full system is apparently this: 1) A magnet moves close to the magnetic core. It's attracted to the core, so it gains mechanical energy during this phase. Yes. Now, without the switching system, the rotor will oscillate if it starts out with the magnet to one side of the ferrite. This will continue and slow down only due to friction, because whatever is gained in one direction is exactly subtracted in the reverse direction. 2) At closest approach, the coil turns on, energy goes into the system, and the core is quenched. Yes. 3) The magnet moves away from the core AND coil. Since the field of the core is canceled, this apparently takes no work. And it doesn't take work. That is, at that point, the rotor is freewheeling. But notice, the core has a certain field. That field could be reproduced by an electromagnet. In this configuration, the permanent magnet on the rotor would be attracted by the electromagnet, which, when the permanent magnet passes it, would be shut off, awaiting the next cycle of approach. In this situation, we have one kind of motor. We are attracting a part of the rotor with an electromagnet, it takes energy to set up that attraction, which then does the work. The Steorn motor appears to be symmetrically the reverse. Instead of the work being done when the coil is energized, it's done when the coil is de-energized. But, it seems, or we would expect, the energy is the same either way, it's simply that the arrangement operates inversely. It appears that Steorn claims some anomaly in this. *How much of an anomaly?* If the anomaly is near noise levels, difficult to measure, compared to the energy already being dumped into the system, we can easily consider it artifact. However, Steorn is claiming 300%. I.e., that for every watt-second going into the coil, there are two watt-seconds of power going into the rotational energy of the rotor. This, if true, would not be marginal. But it would then also be easy to recover that energy and use it to maintain or increase the battery charge (or, much nicer, a supercapacitor charge, which then would provide a very convenient and direct measure of energy storage, not complicated). The generator would have to be only 50% efficient at
RE: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] wrote: The only interaction between a live electrical circuit and a physical object on which it can do work is in step (3). In that step, the coil is energized in such a way that it would REPEL the magnet, which is moving away from it. Think about it -- the core attracts the other magnet, and the coil is canceling that attraction, so the coil is repelling the other magnet. In essence, the coil is pushing the magnet away, working against the attractive force of the coil. So, the phase where work is being done by the battery is the phase when the coil is energized and the magnet and coil are moving apart. To see where and how much energy is being pumped into the system to do useful work, look at the induced voltage in the coil during that phase. Say it again, louder: Linear superposition! Sure, the magnetization of the core changes, but to a very large extent, when you cancel the field of the core, you're looking at the coil and core fields adding linearly. The field of the coil is still there, still interacting with the environment, but it's hidden by the superposed field of the core. Because the interacting fields are essentially perpendicular and the toroid is saturating, looking at this from the perspective of linear superposition is not productive. The motor needs to be considered from the point of view of a parametric interaction. There will be essentially no CEMF because of the perpendicular fields. A higher current will be required to saturate the core when the magnet is present, which suggests that more energy may be required. The interaction and energy input is quite difficult to calculate due to the inductance variation and the combined fields. There is no new physics in this motor. This does not prove that the design cannot be overunity. I have tested many magnetic parametric transformers including soft materials and magnets in many geometries. I started out with efficiencies around 30% but with carefully selected geometries, materials, frequencies and path reluctances obtained efficiencies of over 95 % energy transfer but so far no overunity. Motors with moving magnets in a parametric mode is something that I have considered but not built. George Holz Varitronics Systems
[Vo]:Back EMF vs Inductor Energy Storage
Gnorts, Vorts, Some of us are confusing the issues above. Energy cannot be stored in an inductor because there are no magnetic charge carriers. Hence, when trying to open the circuit on an inductor, the magnetic field WILL COLLAPSE. This forces the potential of the two port device to approach infinity until the field collapses. This means arcing fer sure because the current must leave the inductor. Back EMF, while related, is not exactly the same. Take a NdFeB magnet in your hand and rapidly move it across a sheet of copper. You will feel Lorentz reach up and grab your wrist clutching tighter the faster you try to move. This is an example of Lenz Law, a changing magnetic field in a conductor generates a force in opposition to the change. There is a great demonstration of the Lenz law on the web: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxC-AEC0ROk When Steorn claims no BEMF, they are not saying there is no arcing when switching the inductor. Indeed, this is why their reed switches were failing. What they are claiming is that there is no drag when the magnet moves near the conductor. And they are right due to the asymmetry of the toroid. In an external changing field, half the toroid is creating a current in one direction and the other half creates a current in opposition. Finally note that they are applying voltage to the toroid continuously except when the magnet approaches. They then briefly turn the voltage off and the magnet is attracted to the core. When they re-energize the toroid, they force realignment of the domains of the core and the rotor with the magnet doesn't stick because it's attraction to the core is diminished. There is nothing here which is not known. They are actually showing an INVERSE pulse motor which must be remarkably inefficient since the pulse motors I have tested are only about 20% efficient. They energize the coil through most of the cycle whereas a pulse motor only energizes the coil during the approach of the magnet. I think. Terry
RE: [Vo]:The Norway Spiral
From Rick: Was not a stray rocket test. It was a test of a powerful torsion weapon. Or so says Hoagland: From Terry: Was not a stray rocket test. It was a test of a powerful torsion weapon. Or so says Hoagland: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-Message.htm By now, this fascinating stellar event has been widely viewed across the entire planet. R. Hoagland represents many things to many people. My personal epiphany with Hoagland occurred many years ago when I got a chance to personally view a duplicate of 120mm negative that Hoagland analyzed. The original negative was taken by Apollo astronauts as they circled the moon. I believe it was the Apollo 14 mission. Hoagland spent a great deal of time analyzing what he interpreted to be a strange anomaly that seemed to be on the surface of Mare Crisium. Richard seemed convinced Mare Crisium contained an artificially constructed tower... a HUGE tower. When I viewed a copy of this negative, I had to admit that at first glance it did look like a massive tower. The tower was so huge that it would have been impossible for the Apollo astronauts NOT to have spotted or to have commented on it many times as they orbited above Mare Crisium. Of course, the fact that the astronauts apparently DIDN'T comment on what they saw within Mare Crisium only added more fuel to exciting conspiracy theories. Obviously, the astronauts must have been sworn to secrecy. Whatever... Meanwhile, within seconds after I viewed the negative I noticed that there appeared to be several other strange artifacts nearby. These other artifacts also looked like they could be towers. What was even more interesting was the fact that all these other artifacts where aligned in an exact same parallel angle with the original tower. But these other towers were located on other spots on the moon where the visual 3-D perspective as well as the natural curvature of the surface of the moon would have changed their parallel alignment as perceived by the camera. These other tower artifacts, to have been actually towers should NOT be in an exact parallel angle with the original tower. And then it hit me like a ton of bricks. The original tower was nothing more than a simple scratch in the emulsion of the film. Someone got careless when they were handling the original negative and they ended up inducing several parallel scratches upon the surface in several locations. Those scratches was then faithfully duplicated in all the rest of the negatives. I was astonished that Mr. Hoagland, with all of his presumed analytic abilities, appeared to have been incapable of diagnosing a simple emulsion scratch on the surface of a negative. That pretty much told me everything I needed to know about how far I should take any of Hoagland's speculative theories. Despite what I personally concluded was Hoagland's inexcusable misinterpretation I must confess that Mare Crisium ITSELF remains a fascinating mystery. For the curious please take a look at some of the following images of the Mare. Of particular interest are the first three photos in the top row. The shape of Mare Crisium is unmistakably hexagonal. Is this hexagonal shape just a coincidence? A mere artifact of shadow and other natural events that somehow conspired to make such an interesting shape? Some have speculated that perhaps there was some artificial work-at-hand. If so, some speculation suggests that such work-at-hand most likely occurred billions of years ago when our Moon was much younger, while life on our Earth was probably no more advanced than single cell protozoa. Could there have been an observational post on Crisium? Was it possible that someone was watching us, wondering what might eventually come out of that gooey soup some day Who knows. ;-) Enjoy the show! http://images.google.com/images?source=ighl=enrlz=q=mare+crisiumum=1ie= UTF-8ei=yv07S-XGEobmM6WyzYwJsa=Xoi=image_result_groupct=titleresnum=4v ed=0CB4QsAQwAw http://tinyurl.com/ybh6cqy Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF vs Inductor Energy Storage
On 12/30/2009 07:00 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Gnorts, Vorts, Some of us are confusing the issues above. Energy cannot be stored in an inductor because there are no magnetic charge carriers. Hence, when trying to open the circuit on an inductor, the magnetic field WILL COLLAPSE. This forces the potential of the two port device to approach infinity until the field collapses. This means arcing fer sure because the current must leave the inductor. Back EMF, while related, is not exactly the same. Take a NdFeB magnet in your hand and rapidly move it across a sheet of copper. You will feel Lorentz reach up and grab your wrist clutching tighter the faster you try to move. This is an example of Lenz Law, a changing magnetic field in a conductor generates a force in opposition to the change. There is a great demonstration of the Lenz law on the web: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxC-AEC0ROk When Steorn claims no BEMF, they are not saying there is no arcing when switching the inductor. Indeed, this is why their reed switches were failing. What they are claiming is that there is no drag when the magnet moves near the conductor. And they are right due to the asymmetry of the toroid. In an external changing field, half the toroid is creating a current in one direction and the other half creates a current in opposition. This is approximately correct but, in this case, it is not *exactly* correct, and I think this is a lot of the problem in understanding this thing. If the external field is *uniform* it's true that the EMF in the two sides of the torus will cancel. But real magnetic fields are typically not entirely uniform, and the non-uniformity is not just an artifact; it's how one magnet knows where another magnet is. In a perfectly uniform field a permanent magnet would rotate to align itself with the field, but would not be drawn in any direction -- when something is attracted to a magnet, it's moving up the field gradient. In particular, the force on a magnetic dipole in a field aligned with the dipole is the gradient of the field strength times the strength of the dipole. No field gradient implies there's no force. The fact that there is attraction between two magnets tells you right away that their fields are non-uniform. If I understand the geometry of this motor (which is, admittedly, debatable!) then, in fact, the fields are oriented such that the field of the receding magnet is going to be stronger on one side of the torus than the other. Consequently the induced voltages won't exactly cancel and there will be a BEMF. Stronger core magnets will require more current (or more turns) to cancel their fields. The more current you put through the coil (or the more turns it has with fixed current), the more work the induced voltage is going to be doing. Similarly, stronger moving magnets will result in stronger forces driving the motor, but will also result in larger induced voltages during the quenched motion. Finally note that they are applying voltage to the toroid continuously except when the magnet approaches. They then briefly turn the voltage off and the magnet is attracted to the core. When they re-energize the toroid, they force realignment of the domains of the core and the rotor with the magnet doesn't stick because it's attraction to the core is diminished. There is nothing here which is not known. They are actually showing an INVERSE pulse motor which must be remarkably inefficient since the pulse motors I have tested are only about 20% efficient. They energize the coil through most of the cycle whereas a pulse motor only energizes the coil during the approach of the magnet. I think. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The Norway Spiral
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:The Norway Spiral To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:13 AM Was not a stray rocket test. It was a test of a powerful torsion weapon. Or so says Hoagland: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-Message.htm Terry I hope that is a joke about the pres. getting the Nobel prize. He dont deserve it. Two pancaked north poles can compress at the same time as two south poles: but each compression is dictated by mutual inductance. Concerning theories of scalar interferometry as advocated by theorists at the same time pancake coils compress north poles, the other station compresses South poles. The stations producing this distant interference pattern should then be dependent on the manipulated arc gap between the stations, by virtual line connections of wires over long distances which then determines the resonant frequency of the recieving station, which in this case may be the earth itself. Speculations HDN
RE: [Vo]:Back EMF vs Inductor Energy Storage
The energy is stored in the mag fld, not the inductor. Also, I've seen orbos that seemed to have a core with the toroid, and some that didn't, or at least it certainly didn't look like there was a core. I also was under the impression that the stator cores were NOT PMs, but simply iron cores. A few more thoughts, and I'll spare you the useless speculations... - Work is definitely being done as the permanent magnets on the rotor are being attracted to (accelerating towards) the stator cores. ABD seemed to imply, or state, that the only time any work was being done was after the rotor PMs passed the toroids... He also stated that the toroids must be fed constant current for a significant period after that point... I believe this is not the case. - From the oscilloscope screen shots, and contrary to ABD's comment, the toroids are only being pulsed for a short time as the rotor magnets pass TDC to overcome the cogging effect. From other PM motors like Sprain and Butch LaFonte, the single electromagnet (at the end of the PMs making up the stator) only needs a very short pulse to allow the rotor to pass the cogging point. The time for the mag-fld to build up and then collapse is considerably longer than the electric pulse. - When I mentioned some of the things that Thane Heins had learned over his time at Ottowa U, this forum pretty much dismissed it as nothing new. One of the keys to Orbo is something that Thane also discovered -- namely, that there is a time lag in the response of the magnetic material (magnetic permeability). It was this asymmetry that allowed enough of a lag in the collapse of the mag-fld of the coil, that generated a PUSH against the PMs after they passed TDC, thus causing acceleration; and in some cases, going from 2200rpms to 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600 in one or two second intervals. Accelerating his large rotor 100rpms/sec is no small force. - One more thing that Thane discovered, and my explanation might be a bit off, was that one could 'reroute' the energy that would cause the BEMF by using the proper core material (low or hi permeability??? Can't remember), thus keeping that energy out of the air-gap (btwn PMs in rotor and stator coil/core) and off of the rotor. It is kept within the core material of the stator (and he had VERY large cores), routing it to the opposite pole of the adjacent PM; i.e., he provided a closed 'magnetic circuit'. In some work that I'm involved in right now, we are using permanent magnets and we have them mounted to a soft iron housing, which basically acts like a wire to route the magnetic flux/fld from the south pole of one set of magnets to the north side of the other set. If you don't do this, you've got mag-fld squishing out all over the place... Not a pretty site! :-) - Thane eventually discovered that his system required a tuning of the coils resistance and inductance to optimize the acceleration effect. At first he was using rather modest coil windings, but he ended up using a very high resistance coil (lots of turns of very fine wire) to take advantage of the time lag. He also ended up with some very hefty 'U' shaped cores whose open end width was the same as the spacing of the PMs on the rotor in order to provide a magnetic circuit in which to route the BEMF energy. As for the time lag of magnetic materials (domains), I don't know if Thane ever went as far as to explain it from a physics point of view, but I'll take a stab -- Electrons (elec currents) are much lighter than nuclei (magnetic moments), so electric currents can respond much faster than magnetic domains. Thus, if one designs the PM/EM/COIL systems properly, they can take advantage of that time lag and put it to good use. -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.123/2592 - Release Date: 12/28/09 23:47:00
