Magnetic 'over' and 'under' unity interactions are spectrum conditions of
the same basic effects of magnets doing what they always do - there IS no
deus ex machina when we throw back the curtains and see how the trick was
achieved!
EM OU - if not OU per se - is nothing so exotic as mundane dynamics,
properly observed; a wood / trees issue.
I'll give two familiar examples; the first a thermodynamic loss, the
second a gain:
- consider a small NdFeB attracting over some air gap towards a lump of
pig iron; the latter having significant Sv (entropy viscosity per
Rutherford)
- if the displacement completes in less time than the responding rise in B
within the rough iron sample, then we end up with the neo stuck to the
iron, while inside the material, the harder-pinned domains continue to
yield to the increasing alignment of their neighbors
We could monitor these avalanches by amping up the sample and listening in
on the Barkhausen jumps; when they cease, it's cooked, bashically..
- if we now prise the neo off and return it to its starting position,
we'll be performing more work (F*d) on the input stroke, than the
interaction output when the samples attracted together..
So the interaction's I/O-asymmetric because the induced field density and
resulting force increased during the resting period, AFTER the output
stroke had already completed, but BEFORE pulling 'em apart again.
We thus did more mechanical work than the EM field (vacuum potential) did!
This is mechanical under-unity - we could cycle this interaction all day
and calorimetry will show the missing input energy as lost - ie. all of it
did mechanical work pulling the magnets apart, so none of it is 'missing',
as such.. we simply didn't get as much work out of the field as we put in,
as it wasn't fully formed yet..
Got that? Thermodynamic (ie. non-dissipative) loss, from a time-variant
passive magnetic interaction. 'CoE', read it and weep..
Now for the gain scenario:
- two magnets stacked vertically, stuck to the rim of a horizontal rotor,
opposite poles facing outwards (ie. in the radial plane)
- solenoid stator with a hi-mu core, facing inwards
- both magnets attract equally to the stator core, applying positive
torque to the rotor
- as they reach TDC (min airgap), the solenoid's fired, applying one pole
outwards
- ..rotor mags are thus equally attracted and repelled - ie. zero net
torque - while counter-EMF's induced in the coil by the retreating magnets
are likewise mutually destructive
Fine-tune stator/rotor level with a micrometer head and a 'scope on the
CEMF.
- punchline: magnetic F*d is time-invariant, whereas resistance heating -
the primary input workload - is a time-dependent function of Joule's 2nd
law for heat (Q=I^2rt) and RPM, bashically - ie. per cycle input energy
(duty cycle) is inverse to speed.. so the faster it spins, the less input
heating work for the same magnetic output work. Et voila,
electro-mechanical OU.
I could alternatively describe a purely passive gain (the Kinetron toy) -
but this is all courtesy of Steorn of course (Sean Mc's "where'd the energy
go?" poser and the v8.3 EM Orbo respectively).
The point here however is the conspicuous absence of any exotic or even
particularly unconventional physics or principles - in both cases it's just
the basic laws of induction doing what they ALWAYS do, all the time
everywhere.
Time-variant asymmetric EM interactions simply play Noether symmetries to
create divergent inertial frames, opening the system to source or sink +/-
h-bar to vacuum.. but ALL EM interactions are vacuum interactions,
period.. equitable or not.
In the fist instance tho, it's just force and time picking up the bill.
Understand this - that OU is tractable and tangible by familiar terms (MUST
be, for heavens sake!) - and any notion that it might require recourse to
exotic new physics surely melts away; the REAL problem, surely, was that
it was previously simply INTRACTABLE as a concept; how to even get a
handle on it? 1+1 is not 3, right? So there HAD to be 'something else',
right? Something that could square the circle.. Except, what if that
'something else' was just the old and familiar, yet in a novel light?
In 1712, Bessler worked out how to gain the same amount of momentum from
gravity and time each cycle, for the same internal work done, in spite of
rising system RPM.. and the fact that KE squares with speed, while his net
input work was simply summing as the per-cycle constant times the number of
elapsed cycles. Mechanical OU, eighteenth-century style-e, by fixing the
unit energy cost of momentum from G*t to a speed-invariant value.
Simply playing the game, by the rules, in full observance of all
conservation laws, and Noether's theorem. THAT is the key to over-unity..!
(and whatever more besides..)
So, not against new physics here.. not on an anti-QFT diatribe or
anything... just don't see that the terms of reference of EM OU needs to
'go there' in
