Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
Easter is coming up, he is in sync with the season. Giovanni On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Andrea Rossi April 13th, 2013 at 3:41 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=2#comment-676743 Dear Luca Salvarani: 1- I absolutely have no idea of the date of the publication, I am no more in contact with the Professors. They told me after the tests that the publication could be made by April, but ” could be” does not mean “will be”. 2- I have to be calm, because it is necessary to work well. About the results, I will know them the same day you will: we both will read the report as soon as it will be published. 3- Let’s hope that they will make us resurrect, sort of Lazarus ! Thank you for your enthusiasm, Warm Regards, A.R. The sine qua non condition to resurrect is to be dead and Rossi is telling all the time how alive and busy he is manufacturing 1MW E-cat generators and making progress as the mouse-cat combinations. Why is he NO more in contact with the nameless mystery Professors? Rossi is really hyper-paradoxical Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon
I have been attempting to understand if or why there is a difference in the behavior of high frequency photons as compared to those that we can easily measure. One problem that crops up frequently is that the energy of these waveforms travels outwards at the speed of light relative to us the observer. We are limited to being able to detect the time changing fields with instruments at a location removed from the source to determine the frequency of the signal. According to special relativity, we are unable to catch up with a moving wave and freeze it in position to actually measure the distance between field peaks. No matter how fast we move, the wave will always escape from us at the speed of light. This is true even if we are traveling in a direction that is backwards relative to the forward directed wave front. We do know that the Doppler effect will cause the frequency that we measure to vary with our relative motion compared to the source of the radiation. And, since any time we measure the speed of light in our frame of reference it reads the same, the wavelength must be modified along with the apparent frequency. It becomes tricky when the original source and us calculate different length measurements between field peaks depending upon our relative motion. Perhaps the measurement concept is not valid. Is it possible that we can not effectively freeze time and then move along the now static electric and magnetic field patterns to determine the distance between peaks? Considering that we can not ever actually catch up with the expanding fields in any know manner, then this might be a limitation that is placed upon us by relativity. The best that we can do is to measure the time changing fields that are passing through our reference frame. Then we can determine the frequency of the wave by our local clock and it is accurate as far as we can prove. I can see that there are a lot of interesting implications that arise in the pursuit of these concepts. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 12:47 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What is the currently accepted size of a photon that behaves as a particle? If one of these passes through our very large slit experiment how would it be detected at one location as with light photons? Could it be detected over a large area of the impact region with say a dipole antenna? Has anyone given this concept much thought? I was thinking about this myself. If you contrast a photon involved in the transmission of a radio wave with one that is in the gamma ray range, there is an obvious qualitative difference from our frame of reference. The gamma photon is like a tiny bullet, and the radio wave photon is like a large, and enlarging, bubble. Despite the clear qualitative difference, I am led to believe this difference is entirely relative to the physical and temporal dimensions of the frame of reference. To an observer far larger and more slow moving than the radio wave photon, I suspect that photon will interact with its surroundings like the gamma ray photon does in our world, and to an observer much smaller and more quickly moving than the gamma ray photon, the gamma photon will behave in the manner of the radio wave photon in our frame of reference. If we take away this kind of relativity of the temporal and physical frame of reference for photons, this would appear to imply a kind of absolute position in the midst of a spacetime otherwise characterized by special relativity. Eric
Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
Caro Giovanni, Cathlic Esater Sunday was March 31; this is a retarded reaction from Rossi, he being an agile entrepreneur and fast thinker. Non mi piace, including the rumors of testing in Sweden- why just rumors? Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: Easter is coming up, he is in sync with the season. Giovanni On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Andrea Rossi April 13th, 2013 at 3:41 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=2#comment-676743 Dear Luca Salvarani: 1- I absolutely have no idea of the date of the publication, I am no more in contact with the Professors. They told me after the tests that the publication could be made by April, but ” could be” does not mean “will be”. 2- I have to be calm, because it is necessary to work well. About the results, I will know them the same day you will: we both will read the report as soon as it will be published. 3- Let’s hope that they will make us resurrect, sort of Lazarus ! Thank you for your enthusiasm, Warm Regards, A.R. The sine qua non condition to resurrect is to be dead and Rossi is telling all the time how alive and busy he is manufacturing 1MW E-cat generators and making progress as the mouse-cat combinations. Why is he NO more in contact with the nameless mystery Professors? Rossi is really hyper-paradoxical Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon
Eric, What if you decided to chase after one of the gamma rays? If you constructed a spaceship that traveled at just below the speed of light relative to the source of the ray, it would be effectively Doppler shifted indefinitely. What would you measure at that point? I would suspect like you that the shifted ray would behave exactly as a low frequency signal that is locally generated within your ship. It would be interesting to see the diffraction patterns and other interference patterns under these conditions. I find it interesting to consider the consequences of the spacing of slits for a two slit experiment in such an environment. The slits are along a line that is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the ray. I recall that there is not supposed to be any translation to dimensions at right angles to the relative forward motion. If this is true, there may be experimental problems arising as a result of slit spacing. In the original reference frame there would be a nice interference pattern with the light and dark bars. There would not be a significant pattern detected on the relatively high velocity ship since the spacing between slits would be much less than a wavelength of the transformed gammas. For a real life test, gammas would not be a good choice as a source since it would be nearly impossible to build a two slit experiment of the needed size. Instead, lets use light emitted by an atom in the thought experiment. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 1:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon I wrote: to an observer much smaller and more quickly moving than the gamma ray photon, the gamma photon will behave in the manner of the radio wave photon in our frame of reference. By more quickly moving, I'm thinking not of velocity, but of time slices -- the small little thing gets a lot more done in a given period of time than the gamma photon. Eric
RE: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
orthodox Easter will be May 5th Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:48:51 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi? From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Caro Giovanni, Cathlic Esater Sunday was March 31; this is a retardedreaction from Rossi, he being an agile entrepreneur andfast thinker. Non mi piace, including the rumors of testing in Sweden- why just rumors?Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Easter is coming up, he is in sync with the season. Giovanni On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Andrea Rossi April 13th, 2013 at 3:41 PM Dear Luca Salvarani: 1- I absolutely have no idea of the date of the publication, I am no more in contact with the Professors. They told me after the tests that the publication could be made by April, but ” could be” does not mean “will be”. 2- I have to be calm, because it is necessary to work well. About the results, I will know them the same day you will: we both will read the report as soon as it will be published. 3- Let’s hope that they will make us resurrect, sort of Lazarus ! Thank you for your enthusiasm, Warm Regards, A.R.The sine qua non condition to resurrect is to be dead and Rossi is telling all the time how alive and busy he is manufacturing 1MW E-cat generators and making progress as the mouse-cat combinations. Why is he NO more in contact with the nameless mystery Professors?Rossi is really hyper-paradoxical Peter-- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
Do you hope to read the 3rd Party Report till then? On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: orthodox Easter will be May 5th -- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:48:51 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi? From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Caro Giovanni, Cathlic Esater Sunday was March 31; this is a retarded reaction from Rossi, he being an agile entrepreneur and fast thinker. Non mi piace, including the rumors of testing in Sweden- why just rumors? Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Easter is coming up, he is in sync with the season. Giovanni On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Andrea Rossi April 13th, 2013 at 3:41 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=2#comment-676743 Dear Luca Salvarani: 1- I absolutely have no idea of the date of the publication, I am no more in contact with the Professors. They told me after the tests that the publication could be made by April, but ” could be” does not mean “will be”. 2- I have to be calm, because it is necessary to work well. About the results, I will know them the same day you will: we both will read the report as soon as it will be published. 3- Let’s hope that they will make us resurrect, sort of Lazarus ! Thank you for your enthusiasm, Warm Regards, A.R. The sine qua non condition to resurrect is to be dead and Rossi is telling all the time how alive and busy he is manufacturing 1MW E-cat generators and making progress as the mouse-cat combinations. Why is he NO more in contact with the nameless mystery Professors? Rossi is really hyper-paradoxical Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
I have given up ever seeing an unfiltered third party result from Rossi. History does not show any evidence that he truly will allow such investigation. I also wonder about Defkalion's presentation in Austin in Aug. Specifically, if it will be a touchable demonstration or just words about business and instrumentation the same as I expect from them in July. One day... perhaps one day.. D2 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:35:01 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi? From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Do you hope to read the 3rd Party Report till then? On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: orthodox Easter will be May 5th Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:48:51 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi? From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Caro Giovanni, Cathlic Esater Sunday was March 31; this is a retarded reaction from Rossi, he being an agile entrepreneur andfast thinker. Non mi piace, including the rumors of testing in Sweden- why just rumors?Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Easter is coming up, he is in sync with the season. Giovanni On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Andrea Rossi April 13th, 2013 at 3:41 PM Dear Luca Salvarani: 1- I absolutely have no idea of the date of the publication, I am no more in contact with the Professors. They told me after the tests that the publication could be made by April, but ” could be” does not mean “will be”. 2- I have to be calm, because it is necessary to work well. About the results, I will know them the same day you will: we both will read the report as soon as it will be published. 3- Let’s hope that they will make us resurrect, sort of Lazarus ! Thank you for your enthusiasm, Warm Regards, A.R.The sine qua non condition to resurrect is to be dead and Rossi is telling all the time how alive and busy he is manufacturing 1MW E-cat generators and making progress as the mouse-cat combinations. Why is he NO more in contact with the nameless mystery Professors?Rossi is really hyper-paradoxical Peter-- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Particle size of photon
From: David Roberson I have been attempting to understand if or why there is a difference in the behavior of high frequency photons as compared to those that we can easily measure. ' There is, but it is not easy to follow. It involves going from inverse 4th to 5th powers. Here is a long version of Planck's derivation, since the other link I had is dead. In short, we are comparing photon power (spectral radiance) to temperature (or wavelength) http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm Planck's law describes radiation emitted by a blackbody and can be written as an inverse 5th Law. Wien's power law also implies that emissive power is proportional to temperature to the 5th power. But Stefan-Boltzmann says emissive power is proportional to temperature to the 4th power. How can all of these be true? The usual explanation given is that Stefan-Boltzmann applies to the total emissive power (the integration of the emissive power density, or the area under the curve) while Wien's power law applies to the peak. When we look at these laws in action for stars of different surface temperature, there is a strong narrowing of the spectrum with increasing temperatures such that the peak is spiked and the distribution is compressed. Wien explains the shift of the peak to shorter wavelengths, while the Stefan-Boltzmann explains the abrupt growth in the height of the curve, but eventually the two become problematic. IOW - going from a 4th to a 5th power may not be accounted for in terms of expectation. One way to verbalize this is in trying to explain the oddities of GRBs, where radiation seems to be more powerful than it should be (penetration depth) it can be said that these rays act as if they are exponentially greater in power. And there is some truth to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
Dear Dennis, The results obtained in the tests of Rossi in 2011, with or without steam have to be explained in some way. My guess is he has lower performances and problems of control. Sooner or later he has to show something or will perish. His message of today was incoherent. Possible relation to John Barleycorn? As regarding the DGT demo, it will a pleasant surprise. The guys are serious profesionals. Watch them carefully with positive anticipation.. Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:40 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I have given up ever seeing an unfiltered third party result from Rossi. History does not show any evidence that he truly will allow such investigation. I also wonder about Defkalion's presentation in Austin in Aug. Specifically, if it will be a touchable demonstration or just words about business and instrumentation the same as I expect from them in July. One day... perhaps one day.. D2 -- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:35:01 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi? From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Do you hope to read the 3rd Party Report till then? On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: orthodox Easter will be May 5th -- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:48:51 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi? From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Caro Giovanni, Cathlic Esater Sunday was March 31; this is a retarded reaction from Rossi, he being an agile entrepreneur and fast thinker. Non mi piace, including the rumors of testing in Sweden- why just rumors? Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Easter is coming up, he is in sync with the season. Giovanni On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Andrea Rossi April 13th, 2013 at 3:41 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=2#comment-676743 Dear Luca Salvarani: 1- I absolutely have no idea of the date of the publication, I am no more in contact with the Professors. They told me after the tests that the publication could be made by April, but ” could be” does not mean “will be”. 2- I have to be calm, because it is necessary to work well. About the results, I will know them the same day you will: we both will read the report as soon as it will be published. 3- Let’s hope that they will make us resurrect, sort of Lazarus ! Thank you for your enthusiasm, Warm Regards, A.R. The sine qua non condition to resurrect is to be dead and Rossi is telling all the time how alive and busy he is manufacturing 1MW E-cat generators and making progress as the mouse-cat combinations. Why is he NO more in contact with the nameless mystery Professors? Rossi is really hyper-paradoxical Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Possible relation to John Barleycorn? Considering his heritage, more likely Dionysus. :-)
Re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
Bacchus but if he prefers strong drinks and is in the US? Who knows... I am unable to 'get' this non-communications with the Professors... And at my age few things can surprise me Peter On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Possible relation to John Barleycorn? Considering his heritage, more likely Dionysus. :-) -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
re: [Vo]:resurrection of Rossi?
Rossi is no hurry to have strong confirmation for business reasons. He said earlier he was now was not sure why he agreed to the independent tests. Seems to me he would not have agreed and given the testers two Hot Cats if they didn't work. If they really do work, his 1 MW plant due to be delivered in April 30th will provide all the proof required. He seems excited about the new two stage design and possibly this solves the control issues. If no plant and no report, then certain death. Peter Gluck http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Peter+Gluck%22 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:11:45 -0700 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130414 Bacchus but if he prefers strong drinks and is in the US? Who knows... I am unable to 'get' this non-communications with the Professors... And at my age few things can surprise me Peter
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:10:28 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I am not familiar with a process that accelerates the decay of isotopes, but perhaps this is possible. Do you know of any method that can be employed to determine whether or not this can be done? NMR might be key to this. Paul Brown, and before him Alfred Hubbard claim to have had success in this. Since NMR relies upon interaction with a magnetic field, a magnetic motor (with rapidly varying field strengths) might regularly meet the required conditions to stimulate decay. (Regularly - i.e. when the local instantaneous field strength was exactly right.) Van Allen belt energy extraction would be interesting to analyze. What characteristic of this source would you be able to modify as you drain some of its energy? It appears as though you are suggesting that an electromagnetic process could be tapped. The Van Allen belts comprise charged particles from the Sun that are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field, in as much as they are make circular orbits around the field lines (one way to describe it). As kinetic energy is drained from the particles, the radius of the orbit decreases. The total power available is equal to the rate at which particles are trapped in the field, multiplied by the energy of the average particle. Since the particles came from the Solar wind, both the average energy per particle, and the particle density, are fairly well known. The only figures that require a bit of guess work (at least for me), are the overall size of the field, and the percentage that gets trapped. As for tapping the energy, what I see is a bunch of particles trapped in a magnetic field, and emitting cyclotron radiation. This would normally be a very slow process due to the low cyclotron frequency of the protons (which have most of the energy), however precisely because the frequency is very low, the wavelength is very long, and in some cases may well extend all the way to the Earth's surface. That may make resonant reception possible, with power only weakening as 1/r rather than 1/r^2 as would be the case with normal radio emissions. IOW because the separation distance can be less than one wavelength, it's a near field coupling process rather than a true emission process. I imagine this to be a form of air core transformer, with the particles as the primary coil, and the receiver on Earth as the secondary. Because the cyclotron frequency of the protons ranges from a few hundred rpm to multiple thousand rpm, it seems to be a natural match for a magnetic motor. Whether it would actually work or not, I have no idea. :) (But there have been a number of free energy claims that might actually have been tapping this source.) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:39:29 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] OK Robin, The frequency of a 1 kilometer wavelength radiated signal would be as follows: (f = c / wavelength). or in this case f = 300 million meters per second / 1000 meters or 300 kilohertz. This is a legitimate frequency that can be radiated with the proper antenna. So how big is the particle equivalent for this wavelength? It appears that the concept of particles at this frequency is non sense. A packet of waves that is contained within several wavelengths make much more sense. The radius of the particle is the wavelength / 2 Pi, i.e. 159 m. What I think you really have is a helical wave with a radius of 159 m. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:43:11 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Calculate the frequency. A short exploration of the wave-particle behavior of photons was undertaken and questions have come up that I would like answered. As we are all aware, an electromagnetic wave can be quite large in size. Since there is no lower limit to the frequency of such a wave, it is easy to visualize one that is greater than a kilometer between maximum electric or magnetic peaks. A packet of waves that constitute a photon at a low frequency would likely consist of many peaks. There is reason to assume that a low frequency photon would behave the same way as its brother light photons and generate interference patterns when the size of the experimental slits are in proportion to its wavelength. So, if the slits are several kilometers apart, how large would the equivalent photon particle be? The obvious answer is that it would be in the same size range as the wavelength of the packet. If this is true, then one might question the entire concept of a photon as being any form of particle. After all, aren't most particles virtually point sources as compared to normal dimensions? What is the currently accepted size of a photon that behaves as a particle? If one of these passes through our very large slit experiment how would it be detected at one location as with light photons? Could it be detected over a large area of the impact region with say a dipole antenna? Has anyone given this concept much thought? There are several other questions that can be entertained, but these should bring on some interesting discussions. Please add your insight to this issue. Dave Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:29:19 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Has anyone figured out a theory as to where the energy comes from to drive the motor? Are the magnets depleted with time? I think you can get a measure of the maximum energy stored in the magnets by multiplying the MGO of the magnet by its volume. Even for very strong magnets, it's a pretty small number. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon
That is a big particle. Perhaps we should keep in mind that the particles that find their way through slit experiments are not like billiard balls, but behave more like a wave packet. I still am wondering how to interpret the behavior of such a packet once it hits the screen following the slits. Does it spread out its effective impact region in proportion to the wavelength? In other terms, can it be detected over an area that is similar in size to a short antenna at that frequency? If this is the case, then its smaller brothers should behave in like manner. I have always been suspicious of why a photon of light interacts with only one electron when the wavelength of the light is many times larger than the atom that contains that electron in orbit. Why is there little response from the nearby atoms that have resonances at the same frequency? One might be able to raise an argument concerning reciprocal behavior to explain why only one atom responds to the incoming photon. In this case, only a single photon is released by the change in orbital of a single electron. Why the enormous size question arises is beyond my understanding. A low frequency waveform such at the ones we are discussing can be polarized in any dimension right angled to the forward travel path and is not typically helical when man made. You can generally find a null direction to either the electric field or magnetic field of the traveling wave. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:39:29 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] OK Robin, The frequency of a 1 kilometer wavelength radiated signal would be as follows: (f = c / wavelength). or in this case f = 300 million meters per second / 1000 meters or 300 kilohertz. This is a legitimate frequency that can be radiated with the proper antenna. So how big is the particle equivalent for this wavelength? It appears that the concept of particles at this frequency is non sense. A packet of waves that is contained within several wavelengths make much more sense. The radius of the particle is the wavelength / 2 Pi, i.e. 159 m. What I think you really have is a helical wave with a radius of 159 m. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:43:11 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Calculate the frequency. A short exploration of the wave-particle behavior of photons was undertaken and questions have come up that I would like answered. As we are all aware, an electromagnetic wave can be quite large in size. Since there is no lower limit to the frequency of such a wave, it is easy to visualize one that is greater than a kilometer between maximum electric or magnetic peaks. A packet of waves that constitute a photon at a low frequency would likely consist of many peaks. There is reason to assume that a low frequency photon would behave the same way as its brother light photons and generate interference patterns when the size of the experimental slits are in proportion to its wavelength. So, if the slits are several kilometers apart, how large would the equivalent photon particle be? The obvious answer is that it would be in the same size range as the wavelength of the packet. If this is true, then one might question the entire concept of a photon as being any form of particle. After all, aren't most particles virtually point sources as compared to normal dimensions? What is the currently accepted size of a photon that behaves as a particle? If one of these passes through our very large slit experiment how would it be detected at one location as with light photons? Could it be detected over a large area of the impact region with say a dipole antenna? Has anyone given this concept much thought? There are several other questions that can be entertained, but these should bring on some interesting discussions. Please add your insight to this issue. Dave Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
Don't confuse force with energy.
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:49:20 PM I am having a difficult time judging the amount of energy stored in these magnets. I recall almost having a finger removed when holding a piece of steel near a powerful rare earth magnet. The force attracting the metal was very large and worked against my muscle power. I do not know how many joules of energy were released by the magnet as it drew the steel near to itself, but it was significant. I assume this process could be repeated many times with additional pieces of steel until the field was hidden within the metal mass. Force x distance = work. If you take that amount of energy and multiply it by the number of magnets in the device, you obtain a fairly large amount of energy. I would certainly expect this amount of available energy to be capable of overcoming the losses due to friction in bearings for a very long time. The energy extracted by a fan would need to be handled as well. I am not suggesting that the Yildiz motor is a fraud, but I suspect that there may be another explanation for its performance that is more down to earth. :-) That's just potential energy. When you pull the magnets apart you add it, when they return they deliver it. Nothing to do with what's stored IN the magnet. And even that isn't destroyed if you demagnetize the magnet -- you just get the domains pointing in different directions. I suppose degausing requires some sort of energy budget.
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
If you are referring to my statement about the magnet and steel, I am not confusing them. The force being applied to the steel is attempting to make it come into contact with the magnet. Energy is being released by the magnet as it draws the metal closer since it is having to work against my resistance to that motion. It would be possible to measure the amount of energy by attaching a force measuring scale to the steel part and slowly allowing it to come into contact with the magnet. You would be able to integrate the force times distance curve and obtain the energy. Any technique that resulted in allowing the relative position of the magnet to the steel to be reduced could in principle release a portion of that energy. And, more pieces of steel could be introduced to the magnet in like fashion where each one resulted in more energy release. Eventually, the field would no longer exit the pile of metal and further energy could not be easily extracted. The total amount of energy available escapes my calculation. The fact that steel is being used in the extraction process might multiply the amount of energy that can be obtained as compared to that which is stored in the original field pattern. I am not confident in the later possibility and perhaps someone else might know the answer. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down Don't confuse force with energy.
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
So there are two somewhat simple possibilities. 1: Magnets become demagnetized, the energy stored in their fields is depleted. 2: The magnets enter a state of greater attraction or greater repulsion or both over the run, this is essentially then a high tech spring that is being unwound. But do either of these really provide enough energy? It seems doubtful, also they are mutually exclusive. On to the slightly more far fetched ideas. 3: Magnetic cooling, it would seemingly break the slightly less respected law (or lore) of CoE. 4: NMR, turning into torque how? How about another possibility is considered. Conventional science has a huge piece missing from it's model of the universe. A piece that once understood will make things such as this possible? Is anyone denying that there is evidence for extraordinary and everyday anomalies out of the reach of conventional physics, except possibly if quantum physics was expanded and altered and used in a liberal manner as 'what the bleep' and 'the secret' have. Let's not forget all the reports at :http://amasci.com/weird.html Energy may be pulled from the vacuum/aether/whatever. But do we know that it can't be created? That is just an idea someone had but it does not make it true, it is entirely impossible to know ever if such a thing is or is not actually possible, since you can't possibly know that there is nothing outside of your knowledge. And it is worth noting that Neutrinos were created based on faith that energy was conserved in various nuclear interactions where it wasn't, neutrinos are of course almost unobservable. If a device seems to create energy, it could simply be coming from some place you don't know of. And if you can't find any interaction that creates energy, that does not preclude such. It is also interesting to note that mass can be created from energy (mass is not conserved), by creating collisions more massive particles can come about than was there initially. Physics isn't a religion, such reluctance to consider 'heretical' ideas only hinders progress. John
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
I always find this subject interesting to discuss. One could consider every piece of iron in the universe to posses potential energy in relation to a powerful magnet. Any of these iron things could be brought closer to our magnet and it would find itself subject to a force that could impart energy onto it. If the metal item were not held back by some other means such as the scale that I have spoken of, then it would accelerate toward the magnet and gain kinetic energy until it collided and releases it in the form of heat or some other energy. This process can continue for a while until just the right amount of iron was attached to the magnet. This energy had to come from somewhere and I assume that it is from the original field. Now the question arises as to what would happen if the iron is now reversed and removed from the magnet. I assume that any energy that was extracted in the form of mechanical work would be returned by applying the same amount in reverse. The same should not be true for heat that escaped from the system as kinetic energy was converted into heat due to a collision unless we supply a mechanical input that replaces that heat energy. I guess that should be possible and if so, the magnet acts as a transformer that converts some of the mechanical energy into heat. The bottom line is that a permanent magnet contains energy due to the field surrounding and within it. This energy can be extracted with the proper technique leaving some minimum energy that is beyond our reach due to geometry. A second process can be used to regenerate the original energy field by returning what was borrowed. The important questions that we need answered are how much actual energy is stored in the original magnet and how much can we borrow? Who wants to tackle these questions? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 7:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:49:20 PM I am having a difficult time judging the amount of energy stored in these magnets. I recall almost having a finger removed when holding a piece of steel near a powerful rare earth magnet. The force attracting the metal was very large and worked against my muscle power. I do not know how many joules of energy were released by the magnet as it drew the steel near to itself, but it was significant. I assume this process could be repeated many times with additional pieces of steel until the field was hidden within the metal mass. Force x distance = work. If you take that amount of energy and multiply it by the number of magnets in the device, you obtain a fairly large amount of energy. I would certainly expect this amount of available energy to be capable of overcoming the losses due to friction in bearings for a very long time. The energy extracted by a fan would need to be handled as well. I am not suggesting that the Yildiz motor is a fraud, but I suspect that there may be another explanation for its performance that is more down to earth. :-) That's just potential energy. When you pull the magnets apart you add it, when they return they deliver it. Nothing to do with what's stored IN the magnet. And even that isn't destroyed if you demagnetize the magnet -- you just get the domains pointing in different directions. I suppose degausing requires some sort of energy budget.
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
Well one interesting thought is if we have a magnet, and there is nothing else magnetic, then no energy can be tapped from it, but it still cost the same to establish the field. Additionally it we let iron particle cover our magnet until there is no observable outside field (still there really, but cancelled), you could conclude that it has not expanded it's energy, but if you turned the magnet off (heating it, or it may have been an electromagnet) you will still get a strong jolt of energy (inductive) can the field collapses, and more than if the iron particles were not there! Interestingly if this were an electromagnet all along, each particle of iron that attached it's self would have taken a bite out of the current in the electromagnet (an EMF opposing the current). So if we have a magnet that is attracting some iron, this same thing must be taking place! For those of insufficient understanding of electricity, consider plugging in an unloaded transformer. The resistance of the wire is low, and it would act as a near short except the iron causes such a high impedance that any growth of the field causes an EMF that opposes the change in the field/current. The same EMF occurs with permanent magnets, so when the field is increasing the atoms involved in producing the magnetic field must find energy taken from them. So where does this energy come from? Since we can't endlessly raise a field, what occurs if we make the rise time (where energy is taken from the atoms) and the fall time (given back) very different, with non linear curves and significant differences in the rise and fall times, it might just be possible to break such a system away from unity. If so, what would occur? The iron atoms would become very excited with extra energy, or drained in the converse setup. Now it occurs to me that here are a ton of accounts of invisibility occurring with experiments and almost every one involves steel and changing magnetic fields (and I would come to that conclusion even without considering the Philadelphia experiment). So what if one way you get free energy, and the other way you get invisibility. Quite good I guess, since it would be a real pain to lose your Free Energy device :) F*%#, that's the 3rd one I've lost this week! John On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I always find this subject interesting to discuss. One could consider every piece of iron in the universe to posses potential energy in relation to a powerful magnet. Any of these iron things could be brought closer to our magnet and it would find itself subject to a force that could impart energy onto it. If the metal item were not held back by some other means such as the scale that I have spoken of, then it would accelerate toward the magnet and gain kinetic energy until it collided and releases it in the form of heat or some other energy. This process can continue for a while until just the right amount of iron was attached to the magnet. This energy had to come from somewhere and I assume that it is from the original field. Now the question arises as to what would happen if the iron is now reversed and removed from the magnet. I assume that any energy that was extracted in the form of mechanical work would be returned by applying the same amount in reverse. The same should not be true for heat that escaped from the system as kinetic energy was converted into heat due to a collision unless we supply a mechanical input that replaces that heat energy. I guess that should be possible and if so, the magnet acts as a transformer that converts some of the mechanical energy into heat. The bottom line is that a permanent magnet contains energy due to the field surrounding and within it. This energy can be extracted with the proper technique leaving some minimum energy that is beyond our reach due to geometry. A second process can be used to regenerate the original energy field by returning what was borrowed. The important questions that we need answered are how much actual energy is stored in the original magnet and how much can we borrow? Who wants to tackle these questions? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 7:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:49:20 PM I am having a difficult time judging the amount of energy stored in these magnets. I recall almost having a finger removed when holding a piece of steel near a powerful rare earth magnet. The force attracting the metal was very large and worked against my muscle power. I do not know how many joules of energy were released by the magnet as it drew the steel near to itself, but it was significant. I assume this process could be repeated many times with additional pieces
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
John, You are pointing out some interesting possibilities. I suspect that the internal field pattern of the magnetized material in your item 1 is adjusted by the placement of new metal around the magnet. It might actually increase the net flux locked within the total structure since there is less magnetic resistance with better paths available for that flux to flow. This must result in less energy required to establish the final field since we see that some is extracted by the placement of the iron piece. I suggest that the above analysis points out that the magnet might not become demagnetized to extract energy, but instead we find the flux redirected. I do believe as you say that energy must be released if in fact the magnet is demagnetized but that is slightly different. That is a good analogy of the magnets being a high tech spring. The spring constant is non linear in the case of magnets, but the principle is the similar. We need to figure out how much energy is stored within the high tech springs before we know whether or not it is sufficient to achieve what is observed. The fact that the motors seem to run out of gas tends to support a finite amount of energy to draw from. Why do you think that magnetic cooling breaks the CoE? I suspect that this is operating similar to my description of the method to extract energy from the magnetic field by allowing it to perform work on an external object. You would need to find a method of allowing heat energy to be added to the cooling magnetic material by the local matter needing to be cooled. Each time we extract the newly established energy, more must be supplied to replace what we absorb. This looks like a good subject to follow up on as a learning experience. I do not know enough about NMR to comment. I wish I did. I agree that there is plenty that is not understood about physics. Every generation thinks that they have all the answers, but the discoveries keep coming in and I expect physics should have its own Moore's law describing how fast it advances. I place my bets that it will take a very long time before everything is known and understood in science. If lucky, some of our alien friends might take time to explain some of the more important issues to us. That is assuming that they exist of course. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 8:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down So there are two somewhat simple possibilities. 1: Magnets become demagnetized, the energy stored in their fields is depleted. 2: The magnets enter a state of greater attraction or greater repulsion or both over the run, this is essentially then a high tech spring that is being unwound. But do either of these really provide enough energy? It seems doubtful, also they are mutually exclusive. On to the slightly more far fetched ideas. 3: Magnetic cooling, it would seemingly break the slightly less respected law (or lore) of CoE. 4: NMR, turning into torque how? How about another possibility is considered. Conventional science has a huge piece missing from it's model of the universe. A piece that once understood will make things such as this possible? Is anyone denying that there is evidence for extraordinary and everyday anomalies out of the reach of conventional physics, except possibly if quantum physics was expanded and altered and used in a liberal manner as 'what the bleep' and 'the secret' have. Let's not forget all the reports at :http://amasci.com/weird.html Energy may be pulled from the vacuum/aether/whatever. But do we know that it can't be created? That is just an idea someone had but it does not make it true, it is entirely impossible to know ever if such a thing is or is not actually possible, since you can't possibly know that there is nothing outside of your knowledge. And it is worth noting that Neutrinos were created based on faith that energy was conserved in various nuclear interactions where it wasn't, neutrinos are of course almost unobservable. If a device seems to create energy, it could simply be coming from some place you don't know of. And if you can't find any interaction that creates energy, that does not preclude such. It is also interesting to note that mass can be created from energy (mass is not conserved), by creating collisions more massive particles can come about than was there initially. Physics isn't a religion, such reluctance to consider 'heretical' ideas only hinders progress. John
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
Well one interesting thought is if we have a magnet, and there is nothing else magnetic, then no energy can be tapped from it, but it still cost the same to establish the field. We could move a coil of wire through the field of the lonely magnetic. I suppose that if we had to move the coil with force then we would supply the energy released into a load, but if by chance the magnet was moving relative to our coil, then that relative motion might supply the energy as the magnet lost kinetic energy. This is the description of a generator of sorts. Additionally it we let iron particle cover our magnet until there is no observable outside field (still there really, but cancelled), you could conclude that it has not expanded it's energy, but if you turned the magnet off (heating it, or it may have been an electromagnet) you will still get a strong jolt of energy (inductive) can the field collapses, and more than if the iron particles were not there! Anything that changes the flux coupling to a coil will generate an EMF. I suspect that an electromagnetic behaves a bit differently than a permanent one, but this would still be true. Interestingly if this were an electromagnet all along, each particle of iron that attached it's self would have taken a bite out of the current in the electromagnet (an EMF opposing the current). It seems reasonable to assume that the energy given to each piece of steel or iron would have to come from the DC source as you suggest. I believe that the overall field would also likely increase in the case of an electromagnetic. So if we have a magnet that is attracting some iron, this same thing must be taking place! I believe the external field becomes less with a permanent magnet with additional iron attachment. The opposite happens with an electromagnet. For those of insufficient understanding of electricity, consider plugging in an unloaded transformer. The resistance of the wire is low, and it would act as a near short except the iron causes such a high impedance that any growth of the field causes an EMF that opposes the change in the field/current. The same EMF occurs with permanent magnets, so when the field is increasing the atoms involved in producing the magnetic field must find energy taken from them. So where does this energy come from? Since we can't endlessly raise a field, what occurs if we make the rise time (where energy is taken from the atoms) and the fall time (given back) very different, with non linear curves and significant differences in the rise and fall times, it might just be possible to break such a system away from unity. If so, what would occur? The iron atoms would become very excited with extra energy, or drained in the converse setup. Now it occurs to me that here are a ton of accounts of invisibility occurring with experiments and almost every one involves steel and changing magnetic fields (and I would come to that conclusion even without considering the Philadelphia experiment). So what if one way you get free energy, and the other way you get invisibility. Quite good I guess, since it would be a real pain to lose your Free Energy device :) F*%#, that's the 3rd one I've lost this week! ***Keep asking those good questions! John On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I always find this subject interesting to discuss. One could consider every piece of iron in the universe to posses potential energy in relation to a powerful magnet. Any of these iron things could be brought closer to our magnet and it would find itself subject to a force that could impart energy onto it. If the metal item were not held back by some other means such as the scale that I have spoken of, then it would accelerate toward the magnet and gain kinetic energy until it collided and releases it in the form of heat or some other energy. This process can continue for a while until just the right amount of iron was attached to the magnet. This energy had to come from somewhere and I assume that it is from the original field. Now the question arises as to what would happen if the iron is now reversed and removed from the magnet. I assume that any energy that was extracted in the form of mechanical work would be returned by applying the same amount in reverse. The same should not be true for heat that escaped from the system as kinetic energy was converted into heat due to a collision unless we supply a mechanical input that replaces that heat energy. I guess that should be possible and if so, the magnet acts as a transformer that converts some of the mechanical energy into heat. The bottom line is that a permanent magnet contains energy due to the field surrounding and within it. This energy can be extracted with the proper technique leaving some minimum energy that is beyond our reach due to geometry. A second process can be used to regenerate the
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The important questions that we need answered are how much actual energy is stored in the original magnet and how much can we borrow? Who wants to tackle these questions? I'll give it an attempt. The energy stored in the field of a magnet is equivalent to the energy needed to magnetize the magnet in the first place. Concretely, whatever process that is used to magnetize an ingot of iron in an industrial process will require electricity as an input, plus waste electricity that leaves the system as heat. I'm guessing the energy in the field is equivalent to the total energy less the waste energy. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
Eric, That is a good start at the procedure. Can you come up with some calculations to fill in the blanks? We need to have an idea of the total number of joules of energy contained within a powerful magnetic of known dimensions. Perhaps you could estimate one that would fit into the Yildiz motor along its axis. The length would be several inches but it is not clear how it is oriented. Do we have any views of the ones contained within the structure? What do you think? I recall it was stated that the force acting upon the motor rotors is quite large and pushing the fan blades would almost cut a guys finger. This suggests that a large amount of energy is available. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 9:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The important questions that we need answered are how much actual energy is stored in the original magnet and how much can we borrow? Who wants to tackle these questions? I'll give it an attempt. The energy stored in the field of a magnet is equivalent to the energy needed to magnetize the magnet in the first place. Concretely, whatever process that is used to magnetize an ingot of iron in an industrial process will require electricity as an input, plus waste electricity that leaves the system as heat. I'm guessing the energy in the field is equivalent to the total energy less the waste energy. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
You have failed to tackle the real question. If we have say a permanent magnet, and a C core, as we pass the magnet into the C core, an inductive field is established. If the inductive field will also effect the atoms, and if the material is aligned, then the aligned atoms will have energy induced into and out of them. I think that the effectiveness will depend on the form, the larger the diameter the less voltage would be induced on the atomic scale. Anyway, the question is if you manage to induce enough of an EMF on an atom (the nucleous or the electron shell, or both depending on what is aligned), what would result? If that EMF assisted the movement of charges making a magnetic field, what would happen? If that EMF opposed the movement of charges making a magnetic field, what would happen? Opposition would occur as a piece of steel was being magnetized, a generator does this, is there a 'tax' on the iron in a generator? As the magnetic field collapses it regains energy. If we took only the current that occurs initially and left the iron to 'absorb' the energy from the demagnetization, what would occur? John On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: The important questions that we need answered are how much actual energy is stored in the original magnet and how much can we borrow? Who wants to tackle these questions? I'll give it an attempt. The energy stored in the field of a magnet is equivalent to the energy needed to magnetize the magnet in the first place. Concretely, whatever process that is used to magnetize an ingot of iron in an industrial process will require electricity as an input, plus waste electricity that leaves the system as heat. I'm guessing the energy in the field is equivalent to the total energy less the waste energy. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on Harry On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If you are referring to my statement about the magnet and steel, I am not confusing them. The force being applied to the steel is attempting to make it come into contact with the magnet. Energy is being released by the magnet as it draws the metal closer since it is having to work against my resistance to that motion. It would be possible to measure the amount of energy by attaching a force measuring scale to the steel part and slowly allowing it to come into contact with the magnet. You would be able to integrate the force times distance curve and obtain the energy. Does the magnet do work (use energy) when you are holding the steel at a fixed distance from the magnet? When you let go of the steel and the steel accelerates towards the magnet, is the magnet doing work on the steel's inertia? Harry Any technique that resulted in allowing the relative position of the magnet to the steel to be reduced could in principle release a portion of that energy. And, more pieces of steel could be introduced to the magnet in like fashion where each one resulted in more energy release. Eventually, the field would no longer exit the pile of metal and further energy could not be easily extracted. The total amount of energy available escapes my calculation. The fact that steel is being used in the extraction process might multiply the amount of energy that can be obtained as compared to that which is stored in the original field pattern. I am not confident in the later possibility and perhaps someone else might know the answer. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down Don't confuse force with energy.
