Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[William Beaty]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, David Roberson wrote:

 Good point Eric.  I saw a short video and the fan blade was tiny.
 About the size of a large model plane prop.  I would guess a couple of
 watts, but it is difficult to determine.

A fan is unprofessional, it's a publicity stunt, a distraction.  If
they're *calculating* the fan wattage, be even more suspicious.  They
could be way off, using it to fool themselves, or even choosing such a
method to avoid simple obviuous tests.  Instead, ignore the calcs and get
an empirical estimate by running an exactly identical fan device with a DC
motor, and measure the operating volts/amps.  Or better, get rid of the
fan, instead use their device to power a DC generator hooked to a
resistor. But that would be simple unavoidable truth, not a flashy fan
which performs *apparently* impressive work, while actually their watt
claims may evaporate if investigated.


Estimating magnet energy:  if your magnet is composed of many long thin
magnet rods, you can let each rod flip over into attractive mode while
performing some work.  When half the rods have flipped, and you have a
random pack of strongly-attracting NSNS rods, that's a fairly close
approximation to an unmagnetized material.  Unmagnetized doesn't exactly
mean random, instead it means that all the flux paths are circles confined
within the metal.

Also this:

Unmagnetized: Two horse-shoe magnets held N-to-S to form a closed ring,
with zero flux outside the metal.

Magnetize: Force one of the horse-shoes to rotate 180deg to again form a
ring, but where the N pole is now against the N-pole of the other, and the
flux from both halves is extending out into surrounding space.

And, the net work needed to rotate one horseshoe against repulsion?
That's the energy needed for magnetizing.



(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[John Berry]

It is worth noting that Yildiz might not have expected his motor to fail.
And as such did not think that the load was very important.
A fan is a perfect load for being unobtrusive, imagine the doubt if he had
it turn an electrical generator?
And unlike a prony brake (plus you would not leave a friction brake going
for 5.5 hours), it is a good public demonstration of energy.


John

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

35+ Reasons Why I Think Yildiz' Magnet Motor Really Works
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_35%2B_Reasons_Why_I_Think_Yildiz%27_Magnet_Motor_Really_Works

Reasons include: no heat, it runs at ambient temperature • Dr. Jorge Duarte has 
measured 240 Watts for 5 hours and has seen inside: no battery; I know it 
works • other professionals impressed • stop/start performance consistent with 
torque source expected from magnet motor • movement of small motor is 
consistent with magnet behavior • many evidences of many magnets inside. 
(PESWiki; April 16, 2013) 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

You propose an interesting concept Robin.  Take a look at my post concerning 
the behavior of a pair of magnets of the same type and power.  I draw some 
interesting conclusions about the energy storage and extraction in that 
exercise.


I think the main interaction of the steel piece is to direct some of the 
magnetic flux into a lower reluctance path which apparently is a less energetic 
state for the system.  Since less energy is the final result, a force will 
appear that works with the movement to release the excess energy.  A capacitor 
behaves in a similar manner.  There is a force existing between the two charged 
plates that if allowed to cause movement will result in less energy being 
stored in the electric field.  The movement represents a conversion of electric 
field energy into mechanical energy.  Of course this is only true when the 
leads of the capacitor are open circuited and no external energy is input.


It is an interesting process to pile steel pellets onto a magnet until there is 
no external field.  The final state of the conglomerate is of low energy.  All 
the lines of force are effectively shorted out through the steel pellets and 
the field energy is minimized.  I like to mentally allow each pellet to locate 
its final resting place (rip) slowly as I extract the mechanical energy during 
the process.  If not, the pellets would speed up and collide with the magnet 
releasing most of the energy in the form of heat.


You appear to be describing normal transformer operation.  The internal domains 
of the steel align with the drive such that you get far more field than would 
occur within air.  That is a reasonably efficient operation as long as eddy 
currents are not too strong and the process does not result in much loss to 
heating.  At a slow rate such as I am referring to, the loss would be extremely 
small.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 12:48 am
Subject: 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 18:49:20 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
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.

I think that as the normally randomly oriented magnetic domains in the steel
(not the magnet) enter the field of the magnet, they domains in the steel become
oriented, and as a consequence release energy. IOW the energy isn't coming from
the magnet, but from the steel. If the steel is removed from the magnet, then
apart from the energy required to remove it, I would also expect the temperature
of the steel to drop a little as thermal energy is used to randomize the
magnetic domains in the steel again.
(BTW this may be the mechanism involved in the motor, since magnets are moving
around rapidly, and the magnetic field strength is constantly varying, it's
possible that a magnetic heat pump is at work, that is extracting heat from the
air flowing through the device.)
Note that this would be another example of a system that violates Carnot because
it converts energy from kinetic to potential, and then into kinetic again, but
in the form of macroscopic motion rather than atomic motion (i.e. heat).


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. :-)

Then I suggest you look at the patent app., and figure out exactly how much
magnet volume is available. Multiplying by the MGO of the magnetic material will
give you a total energy figure.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

 If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on 


I think that the remainder of your sentence was cut off here Harry.
 
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?


No, if the steel is held steady then no work is being done by definition.  Work 
equals the integral of force times distance moved.  Work was done when the 
steel was moved from far away to the fixed position.
 
When you let go of the steel and the steel accelerates towards the magnet, is 
the magnet  doing work on the steel's inertia?


The magnet is doing work on the steel as it accelerates toward it.  Magnetic 
potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy in this case.  This is 
much like work being done on a mass that is moved within a gravitational field. 
 The same equations apply which is work(energy) equals the integral of the 
force times the distance moved.  This assumes that the force has a component 
that is along the path the steel follows in space.  A force that is always 
applied at right angles to the motion does no work upon the object.  This would 
be similar to the motion of a charged particle traveling within a static 
magnetic field.  No work is done in that case.
 
 
 
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.


 


Dave

 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on

  I think that the remainder of your sentence was cut off here Harry.



By analogy with your steel/magnet analysis the Earth is doing work on a
falling apple and during that process the Earth's gravity is getting a
little weaker.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[John Berry]

Is earths gravity getting weaker by an apple falling

It is now earth plus an apple, and if enough apples fell, the gravity would
increase further, eventually measurably increasing earths gravity, and
creating an apple sauce layer of course.

And ultimately an very appley black hole.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:


If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on

  I think that the remainder of your sentence was cut off here Harry.



 By analogy with your steel/magnet analysis the Earth is doing work on a
 falling apple and during that process the Earth's gravity is getting a
 little weaker.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 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?

  No, if the steel is held steady then no work is being done by
 definition.  Work equals the integral of force times distance moved.  Work
 was done when the steel was moved from far away to the fixed position.



You did work removing the steel.




 When you let go of the steel and the steel accelerates towards the
 magnet, is the magnet  doing work on the steel's inertia?

  The magnet is doing work on the steel as it accelerates toward it.
  Magnetic potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy in this
 case.  This is much like work being done on a mass that is moved within a
 gravitational field.  The same equations apply which is work(energy) equals
 the integral of the force times the distance moved.  This assumes that the
 force has a component that is along the path the steel follows in space.  A
 force that is always applied at right angles to the motion does no work
 upon the object.  This would be similar to the motion of a charged particle
 traveling within a static magnetic field.  No work is done in that case.




This is correct, but for  300+ the natural forces have been seen as natural
because they are not suppose to need a supply of energy to do work (unlike
animals and people). So in this view the magnet does work on the steel but
it does not need energy to perform that work. This all goes back to the
Cartesian notion that God set the universe in motion and only God can
destroy or create motion.   In fact the CoE was advanced by James Joules in
 the middle of 19th century to further enshrine the inviolability of the
natural forces. Without the doctrine of CoE reasonable people could still
entertain the possibility that momentum can vanish from friction.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

That is a good thought Harry.  It would be true if gravity behaved the same way 
as magnetism.  In the case of gravity additional matter that is allowed to 
become attached to the initial body behaves in exactly the same way as the 
original matter.  The larger net body generates a larger gravity field.  The 
incoming steel that is attracted to the magnet does not have any magnetism to 
bring to the table.  Instead, it absorbs some of the original field.


I guess one way to see a difference between these two forces is to observe what 
happens when a lot of heat is applied to each system.  The gravity gets a tiny 
bit stronger due to the mass associated with the heat energy while the magnet 
looses its magnetism.  The natural state of magnetic materials is to be 
demagnetized so that is what happens when it gets a chance.  I think of it as I 
would a large collection of small bar magnets in a pile.  There is a very 
strong tendency for each one to join with another that faces in the opposite 
direction where the north pole of one is attached to the south pole of the 
other and vice versa.  This would result in the lowest energy configuration.  
Also, gravity does not have poles that can cancel each other with careful 
alignment.


It is interesting to construct a larger magnet by placing the north pole of one 
against the south pole of the next in a single line.  You would easily be able 
to make many others the same way as long as they are built in a one unit thick 
linear form.  If you now try to make a more powerful magnet by placing two 
equal length ones in parallel, they will repel each other and attempt to flip 
over so that the north pole of one is against south pole of the other.  Again, 
this is a lower energy configuration that the system will attempt to achieve.



When the steel is allowed to contact our magnet, some of the magnetic flux is 
allowed to follow a shorter path through the added steel and the external field 
becomes weaker.  Each additional piece of steel that we add absorbs more of the 
available flux until all of it contained within the net structure and no more 
escapes to attract additional steel masses.   This represents the lowest energy 
state for the system.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 2:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down






On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:




 If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on 


I think that the remainder of your sentence was cut off here Harry.


 
 
By analogy with your steel/magnet analysis the Earth is doing work on a falling 
apple and during that process the Earth's gravity is getting a little weaker.  
 
Harry


 

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth considering
as a power source.

 

I think it's about the energy recovered from just one traverse of a magnetic
material from infinity to contact.

  It's related to  the area inside the hysteresis curve.  I have the figures
somewhere,

but can't find them right now.

 

Neo magnets don't demagnetize even in repulsion after many millions of
cycles.

You should look elsewhere for sources of energy.

 

Since magnetic phenomena are highly non linear in both time and space (
which may result in emergent properties) , these kinds of problems are
notoriously 

unfathomable ( incomputable except via numerical methods and most models
don't even consider magnetic viscosity Sv,

whereby the response of a ferromagnetic material to an applied field is
delayed from nanoseconds to seconds depending 

on the material ( for neo, it's about 1 msec , which I  personally measured
)).

 

Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona US

 

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: 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 ...

 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[James Bowery]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
hoyt-stea...@cox.netwrote:

 The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth considering
  as a power source.

 ** **

 I think it's about the energy recovered from just one traverse of a
 magnetic material from infinity to contact.

   It's related to  the area inside the hysteresis curve.  I have the
 figures somewhere,

 but can't find them right now.

 ** **

 Neo magnets don't demagnetize even in repulsion after many millions of
 cycles.

 You should look elsewhere for sources of energy.

 ** **

 Since magnetic phenomena are highly non linear in both time and space (
 which may result in emergent properties) , these kinds of problems are
 notoriously 

 unfathomable ( incomputable except via numerical methods and most models
 don't even consider magnetic viscosity Sv,

 whereby the response of a ferromagnetic material to an applied field is
 delayed from nanoseconds to seconds depending 

 on the material ( for neo, it's about 1 msec , which I  personally
 measured )).

 ** **

 Hoyt Stearns

 Scottsdale, Arizona US

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com dlrober...@aol.com]
 *Sent:* Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:42 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* 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 ...

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jed Rothwell]

Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote:

The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth considering
  as a power source.


This means the energy needed to make the domains line up, right?

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Yes.

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

 

Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote:

 

The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth considering
as a power source.

 

This means the energy needed to make the domains line up, right?

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[James Bowery]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indeng.html

That gives the formula for a magnetic field's energy density (energy per
volume) as:

½B^2/μ

If, as our expert claims, the energy is basically in the noise, one
should be able to come up with a simple calculation of an upper bounds by
picking an appropriately large volume and saying the energy density applies
throughout that volume.




On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
hoyt-stea...@cox.netwrote:

 Yes.

 ** **

 *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 2:10 PM

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke
 down

 ** **

 Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote:

 ** **

 The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth considering
  as a power source.

 ** **

 This means the energy needed to make the domains line up, right?

 ** **

 - Jed

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

I was thinking about the energy that can be extracted by allowing many pieces 
of steel to slowly come into contact with a magnet which most likely would not 
demagnetize the original magnet.  I think it is actually a way to redirect the 
external field.


I had an interesting thought.  Take two identical bar magnets and place them 
far apart.  Each one emits a static field from their dipole source that 
occupies the region surrounding the magnet.  Theoretically a person could 
measure the field at every point in space around one of these magnets and I 
assume that it would be a vector with a certain amount of energy proportional 
to the magnitude squared.  Sum up the energy from all these points and you 
obtain a number related to the total stored.


With two identical magnets, you have twice as much energy stored when compared 
to one as long as they are far apart.  Now, you can slowly move them together 
into a parallel position touching each other.  If you end up with the poles in 
opposition, a force will pull them together and do work against the device that 
restricts the movement.  If instead, you place them with like poles together, 
there will be a large repulsion force that requires energy to be applied to 
obtain the final position.


The combined pair of magnets offers interesting insight into the problem.  A 
test of the net final field can be performed as with a single magnet.  The 
vector nature of a magnetic field suggests that superposition should apply as 
the pair is slowly brought into close contact and that the net field would 
exhibit two different values depending upon the poles matching or not.  If the 
poles are arranged north against north pole, then the field would be two times 
as strong as a single magnet as long as each magnet does not strongly modify 
the others operation.  On the other hand, when the north pole of one is against 
the south pole of the other, the net field would tend to balance out for our 
test device.


It is assumed that the energy stored within a field at a point in space is 
proportional to the square of the field intensity.  So, when the magnets are in 
parallel north to north, there should be approximately 4 times as much energy 
as that contained with just one magnet instead of two times as much which would 
be the original sum for a far removed pair.  In the other case, the net would 
tend toward zero energy storage since the fields would generate a net vector 
sum of zero in the ideal case.


So, if we attach one of my favorite scales to one of the magnets and fix the 
other in space and then record the force between the two as they are slowly 
moved together we should be able to obtain a number that represents the energy 
either absorbed or 
released by the pair as they are brought together.  It appears that the same 
amount of energy would be measured in both cases which is equal to the total 
for two magnets far removed.  I would assume that it would be much easier to 
allow the magnets to pull together in the configuration where the poles are 
opposite since they would self align in that case.


It seems logical to assume that the energy measured by this hypothetical 
procedure would be approximately the same as that obtained by slowly adding 
steel around an initial magnet since the end result would be zero external 
field which is what you obtain with the opposing pole configuration where the 
vectors cancel out.


I recall the behavior of two strong rare earth magnets being moved together and 
it is not pretty.  I could not control the position of one relative to the 
other as they became closer together no matter how hard I tried.  At the time I 
was not interested in the amount of energy required to achieve that goal, but 
regardless of that number, I could not force the desired behavior so it was 
substantial.  And, it was suicide to get some of your skin between two poles 
that were attracted to each other.


Has anyone else attempted to measure the energy stored by the above technique?  
Can it be simulated with a computer program that anyone has in their possession?


Dave
 



-Original Message-
From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 1:15 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down



The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth considering  as 
a power source.
 
I think it's about the energy recovered from just one traverse of a magnetic 
material from infinity to contact.
   It's related to  the area inside the hysteresis curve.  I have the figures 
somewhere,
but can't find them right now.
 
Neo magnets don't demagnetize even in repulsion after many millions of cycles.
You should look elsewhere for sources of energy.
 
Since magnetic phenomena are highly non linear in both time and space ( which 
may result in emergent properties) , these kinds of problems are notoriously 
unfathomable ( incomputable except

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[James Bowery]

.  And, it was suicide to get some of
 your skin between two poles that were attracted to each other.

  Has anyone else attempted to measure the energy stored by the above
 technique?  Can it be simulated with a computer program that anyone has in
 their possession?

  Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 1:15 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

  The magnetization energy of neo magnets is small, hardly worth
 considering  as a power source.

 I think it's about the energy recovered from just one traverse of a
 magnetic material from infinity to contact.
It's related to  the area inside the hysteresis curve.  I have the
 figures somewhere,
 but can't find them right now.

 Neo magnets don't demagnetize even in repulsion after many millions of
 cycles.
 You should look elsewhere for sources of energy.

 Since magnetic phenomena are highly non linear in both time and space (
 which may result in emergent properties) , these kinds of problems are
 notoriously
 unfathomable ( incomputable except via numerical methods and most models
 don't even consider magnetic viscosity Sv,
 whereby the response of a ferromagnetic material to an applied field is
 delayed from nanoseconds to seconds depending
 on the material ( for neo, it's about 1 msec , which I  personally
 measured )).

 Hoyt Stearns
 Scottsdale, Arizona US



  *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com dlrober...@aol.com]
 *Sent:* Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:42 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* 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 ...

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

A cubic centimeter would have 512 kj/m^3 /100 m^3 = .516 joules.  This 
equates to .516 newton-meters for a magnet 1 cm cube.  It appears that the 
force would be rather intense if most of this energy was concentrated within 
the closest centimeter from the magnet.


Obviously Yildiz does not have anywhere near a cubic meter of magnet so the 
question becomes where does the energy come from to power the fan for that 
length of time?  Has anyone actually measured the power being delivered by the 
fan?  I understand your joke James, but this is a serious question.  Before I 
or anyone else should be willing to accept that this system actually works as 
advertised every possible trick needs to be eliminated.  You have done a 
service in proving that there is not sufficient magnetic energy storage to keep 
a fan of more than a very few watts running.  Now we must prove that the actual 
fan takes more watts than we can deliver and that has not been done.  Is there 
video evidence from the show that proves that the fan was actually driven for 
the 5.5 hours or is that just what was suggested?


This is beginning to remind me of other systems where enough unknowns are 
thrown into the fray to hide the real facts.  Why only a short operation 
period?  That should raise red flags for everyone.  A true free energy device 
would not have such a limitation.


I remain skeptical of this type of device until more clear evidence is 
submitted.  I believe it was Jed that said that he has attempted to buy this 
sort of system before only to be turned down.  Show me the solid evidence 
before I am willing to give up on the CoE.


Dave 




-Original Message-
From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down




If you trust wikipedia on stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Description


Therefore, as the maximum energy density is proportional to Js2, this magnetic 
phase has the potential for storing large amounts of magnetic energy (BHmax ~ 
512 kJ/m3 or 64 MG·Oe), considerably more than samarium cobalt (SmCo) magnets, 
which were the first type of rare earth magnet to be commercialized. In 
practice, the magnetic properties of neodymium magnets depend on the alloy 
composition, microstructure, and manufacturing technique employed.




So if I may be indulged for a moment... let's assume Yildiz has come up with a 
way of embedding so much magnet energy that it is the equivalent of a cubic 
meter of Neodymium magnets.


That means he has a whopping 512kJ to run down during his 5 hours.  This 
calculates out to:

512kJ;5hour?W
(512 * [kilo*joule]) * (5 * hour)^-1 ? watt
= 28.44 W


That's just about enough to run a little fan.

Now the question is, where did he get such powerful magnets?


(That's a joke, son... its a JOKE!)









On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I was thinking about the energy that can be extracted by allowing many pieces 
of steel to slowly come into contact with a magnet which most likely would not 
demagnetize the original magnet.  I think it is actually a way to redirect the 
external field.


I had an interesting thought.  Take two identical bar magnets and place them 
far apart.  Each one emits a static field from their dipole source that 
occupies the region surrounding the magnet.  Theoretically a person could 
measure the field at every point in space around one of these magnets and I 
assume that it would be a vector with a certain amount of energy proportional 
to the magnitude squared.  Sum up the energy from all these points and you 
obtain a number related to the total stored.


With two identical magnets, you have twice as much energy stored when compared 
to one as long as they are far apart.  Now, you can slowly move them together 
into a parallel position touching each other.  If you end up with the poles in 
opposition, a force will pull them together and do work against the device that 
restricts the movement.  If instead, you place them with like poles together, 
there will be a large repulsion force that requires energy to be applied to 
obtain the final position.


The combined pair of magnets offers interesting insight into the problem.  A 
test of the net final field can be performed as with a single magnet.  The 
vector nature of a magnetic field suggests that superposition should apply as 
the pair is slowly brought into close contact and that the net field would 
exhibit two different values depending upon the poles matching or not.  If the 
poles are arranged north against north pole, then the field would be two times 
as strong as a single magnet as long as each magnet does not strongly modify 
the others operation.  On the other hand, when the north pole of one is against 
the south pole of the other, the net field would tend to balance out for our 
test device

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

CoE would still apply in this case
the total energy before = total energy after
energy the substance  = energy of substance + energy of escaping neutrinos.

A cooling substance that violated CoE wouldn't be producing enough
particles or radiation to balance the equation.

Harry


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:25 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:32:54 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Don't forget that there are two ways to violate of CoE. Either by the
 creation of energy or by the destruction energy.
 Harry
 
 That opens an interesting possibility. Suppose that heat could be
 converted into
 neutrino/anti-neutrino pairs, which then escaped. No thermal balance,
 hence the
 substance would spontaneously cool down.
 One can broaden the concept to include various types of conversion other
 than
 into neutrinos.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

That means he has a whopping 512kJ to run down during his 5 hours.  This
 calculates out to:

 512kJ;5hour?W
 (512 * [kilo*joule]) * (5 * hour)^-1 ? watt
 = 28.44 W

 That's just about enough to run a little fan.


According to this link, a ceiling fan running at low speed consumes 24 W
[1].  I have not seen the magnet motor video, but assuming the fan is
smaller and has less mass than a celling fan, I think we can scale down the
power consumed linearly using the ratio of the estimated masses of the two
fans.

Eric

[1]
http://www.heraldextra.com/amount-of-electricity-consumed-by-common-small-appliances/article_ee000c18-5cec-11de-ac79-001cc4c03286.html

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

Good point Eric.  I saw a short video and the fan blade was tiny.  About the 
size of a large model plane prop.  I would guess a couple of watts, but it is 
difficult to determine.


We need good data to evaluate the Yildiz device.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 9:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down



On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:





That means he has a whopping 512kJ to run down during his 5 hours.  This 
calculates out to:


512kJ;5hour?W
(512 * [kilo*joule]) * (5 * hour)^-1 ? watt
= 28.44 W


That's just about enough to run a little fan.





According to this link, a ceiling fan running at low speed consumes 24 W [1].  
I have not seen the magnet motor video, but assuming the fan is smaller and has 
less mass than a celling fan, I think we can scale down the power consumed 
linearly using the ratio of the estimated masses of the two fans.


Eric


[1] 
http://www.heraldextra.com/amount-of-electricity-consumed-by-common-small-appliances/article_ee000c18-5cec-11de-ac79-001cc4c03286.html




 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

 From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:10:00 PM

 Good point Eric. I saw a short video and the fan blade was tiny.
 About the size of a large model plane prop. I would guess a couple
 of watts, but it is difficult to determine.
 
 
 We need good data to evaluate the Yildiz device.

See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78782.html -- at least 
50W 

The estimate for the Delft demonstration was about 1/2 HP, with a four-bladed 
fan.
(acceleration of air -- velocity * area)

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:49:20 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
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.

I think that as the normally randomly oriented magnetic domains in the steel
(not the magnet) enter the field of the magnet, they domains in the steel become
oriented, and as a consequence release energy. IOW the energy isn't coming from
the magnet, but from the steel. If the steel is removed from the magnet, then
apart from the energy required to remove it, I would also expect the temperature
of the steel to drop a little as thermal energy is used to randomize the
magnetic domains in the steel again.
(BTW this may be the mechanism involved in the motor, since magnets are moving
around rapidly, and the magnetic field strength is constantly varying, it's
possible that a magnetic heat pump is at work, that is extracting heat from the
air flowing through the device.)
Note that this would be another example of a system that violates Carnot because
it converts energy from kinetic to potential, and then into kinetic again, but
in the form of macroscopic motion rather than atomic motion (i.e. heat).


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. :-)

Then I suggest you look at the patent app., and figure out exactly how much
magnet volume is available. Multiplying by the MGO of the magnetic material will
give you a total energy figure.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[mixent]

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:56:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
CoE would still apply in this case
the total energy before = total energy after
energy the substance  = energy of substance + energy of escaping neutrinos.

A cooling substance that violated CoE wouldn't be producing enough
particles or radiation to balance the equation.

Harry

It would just produce less as it cooled down, until it ended up at absolute
zero, or at a temperature where the energy lost through neutrino production
matched the heat leaking in through the container.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:51 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:56:56 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 CoE would still apply in this case
 the total energy before = total energy after
 energy the substance  = energy of substance + energy of escaping
 neutrinos.
 
 A cooling substance that violated CoE wouldn't be producing enough
 particles or radiation to balance the equation.
 
 Harry

 It would just produce less as it cooled down, until it ended up at absolute
 zero, or at a temperature where the energy lost through neutrino production
 matched the heat leaking in through the container.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


Yes, it is a problem in non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
The rate of particle emission should be commensurate with the rate of
cooling according to CoE.

Interestingly, if the rate of cooling is greater than what would be
expected based on the rate of particle emission that would imply energy is
being _destroyed_.

On the other hand, if the rate of cooling is less than what would be
expected based on the rate of particle emission that would mean energy is
being _created_.

I am glad you brought this up, because it shows that energy production or
creation does not always have to be associated with a rise in temperature.

harrry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[mixent]

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]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[mixent]

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]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Terry Blanton]

Don't confuse force with energy.

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

 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

[David Roberson]

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

[John Berry]

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

[David Roberson]

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

[John Berry]

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

[David Roberson]

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

[David Roberson]

 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.


 


Dave
 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Eric Walker]

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

[David Roberson]

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

[John Berry]

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

[Harry Veeder]

 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.

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[pagnucco]

Dave,

I am no expert on spin batteries, but I think that the battery material is
driven to a stable state of high magnetic energy by subjecting its dipoles
to a strong magnetic field.  I believe that almost all of the energy at
that point is in the magnetic field.  I do not know how homogenous the
best storage materials are, nor how structured their domains are.

Conversion of the stored energy into electrical current is described in
the presentation.  I wish I could find more references.

The theory of storage of energy in the e-m fields still seems pretty
contentious.  For example, google Feynman disk paradox - there are a
number of different 'solutions' to how momentum in magnetic circuits is
converted into mechanical momentum.  Quite perplexing.

-- Lou Pagnucco


Dave Roberson wrote:
 Lou,


 Are you suggesting that there is a natural store of magnetic spin energy
 which can be tapped by one of these devices?  I am under the impression
 that they are extracting the overall magnetic energy due to internal
 alignment of the magnetic domains.


 In your concept, what does a material that has this energy depleted behave
 as?  How would it differ from other chunks of the same type that are
 fresh?


 Is there any way to measure a before and after effect other than by
 measuring the change in external fields?


 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 12:06 am
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


 Jones,

 I believe that this places an approximate upper bound on how much energy
 can be stored in the magnetic field of a Kg of material without an
 externally supplied current, and that, if the output exceeds this bound,
 some other energy source is being tapped.  The energy density given in the
 presentation for the spin battery is up to 10X that of Li-ion batteries.

 Perhaps, there is something I am overlooking.  Comments are welcome.

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Jones Been wrote:
 This is very interesting, but being mostly related to electronics, it
 does
 not appear to be all that close to what Yildiz is doing … yet
 spintronics of
 a different sort could be involved somehow.

 Spintronics is a new way of incorporating nano-magnetic effects into
 electronics, which they have done in the spin-battery - but maybe
 spintronics has been inadvertently incorporated into magnets, in order
 to
 get much higher performance without using circuits, per se.


 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Pardon if this is old news, but a 'spin battery' is potentially a very
 efficient energy source.  From the presentation:

 The Spin Battery -- Stewart E. Barnes
 http://www.physics.miami.edu/~barnes/SpinBattery.pdf

 (SLIDE 30) Theoretical Maximum
 If one changes the magnetic state it is possible
 to recover the Jsd ~ 4eV exchange energy.
 This gives 4.0 x 10^6 J/kg.

 Also see -
 Theoretical spin battery could see magnet powered cars
 http://www.gizmag.com/spin-battery-magnet/11271/

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Jones Beene wrote:
 It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for
 this demo.

 That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
 Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but
 what
 is
 specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has
 been
 allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
 trickery.

 Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical,
 but it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to
 stored
 spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a
 magnet can
 be
 [...]

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

From: David Roberson 

Jones,

If it performed that well, then it would be interesting.
That amount of power extracted over such a long time period would represent
a large amount of energy.  I tend to think of the energy stored in a magnet
as being relatively small since you can take an unmagnetized piece of
material and magnetize it with a modest amount of input energy.  Since I
have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there is the same amount of
energy available as is needed to achieve that state. 


Dave - Your point about CoE is exactly the one which I was struggling to
address in the first post. I think that energy (redefined) is conserved.

If CoE is based on thermodynamics, and does not fully account for spin
energy, then it does not mean that we abandon conservation of energy – only
that we start including spin as part of the energy to be conserved.

The end result is that far more energy can be derived from certain specialty
materials – especially when they are manufactured and processed in a certain
way (nano-geometry and magnetic conditioning come to mind) … but when you
account for (spin + thermodynamics) the that higher value is still
conserved.

Jones

 
attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

To go a bit further .. which is way out on a fragile limb
g 

… in thermodynamics, heat goes to a heat-sink but spin plays
no role. In spin-dynamics, spin goes to a spin-sink and heat plays no role.
The two should be combined, in order to accurately calculate CoE.

That is a bit naïve but essentially it summarizes this
hypothesis - as epitomized in the reality of a magmo which captures magnetic
spin by incorporating the spin-sink (macro-level of torque) as the essential
feature of its operation.


From: David Roberson 

Jones,

If it performed that well, then it would be
interesting.  That amount of power extracted over such a long time period
would represent a large amount of energy.  I tend to think of the energy
stored in a magnet as being relatively small since you can take an
unmagnetized piece of material and magnetize it with a modest amount of
input energy.  Since I have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there is
the same amount of energy available as is needed to achieve that state. 


Dave - Your point about CoE is exactly the one which I was
struggling to address in the first post. I think that energy (redefined) is
conserved.

If CoE is based on thermodynamics, and does not fully
account for spin energy, then it does not mean that we abandon conservation
of energy – only that we start including spin as part of the energy to be
conserved.

The end result is that far more energy can be derived from
certain specialty materials – especially when they are manufactured and
processed in a certain way (nano-geometry and magnetic conditioning come to
mind) … but when you account for (spin + thermodynamics) the that higher
value is still conserved.

Jones



 
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

Is there a method by which we can measure the amount of energy contained within 
the spin sources and sinks?  In principal I agree with you that there are 
alternate sources of energy that can be tapped.  A good example is the storage 
of gravitational energy when a mass is placed higher in the field.  Every force 
supports energy storage when work is done against the field and not dissipated 
as heat.


The big question is how much energy can be stored by the spin magnet and how 
efficiently can it be absorbed and extracted in a cycle?  A related question 
would be: do certain materials contain natural large levels of spin energy that 
can be extracted leaving them depleted?  It appears that you are more 
interested in developing materials that are designed with spin energy storage 
in mind.  This would be an excellent goal if the energy density can be 
sufficient and the storage and extraction processes kept efficient.


Dave 



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 10:05 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


To go a bit further .. which is way out on a fragile limb
g 

… in thermodynamics, heat goes to a heat-sink but spin plays
no role. In spin-dynamics, spin goes to a spin-sink and heat plays no role.
The two should be combined, in order to accurately calculate CoE.

That is a bit naïve but essentially it summarizes this
hypothesis - as epitomized in the reality of a magmo which captures magnetic
spin by incorporating the spin-sink (macro-level of torque) as the essential
feature of its operation.


From: David Roberson 

Jones,

If it performed that well, then it would be
interesting.  That amount of power extracted over such a long time period
would represent a large amount of energy.  I tend to think of the energy
stored in a magnet as being relatively small since you can take an
unmagnetized piece of material and magnetize it with a modest amount of
input energy.  Since I have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there is
the same amount of energy available as is needed to achieve that state. 


Dave - Your point about CoE is exactly the one which I was
struggling to address in the first post. I think that energy (redefined) is
conserved.

If CoE is based on thermodynamics, and does not fully
account for spin energy, then it does not mean that we abandon conservation
of energy – only that we start including spin as part of the energy to be
conserved.

The end result is that far more energy can be derived from
certain specialty materials – especially when they are manufactured and
processed in a certain way (nano-geometry and magnetic conditioning come to
mind) … but when you account for (spin + thermodynamics) the that higher
value is still conserved.

Jones



 

 

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[William Beaty]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


Pardon if this is old news, but a 'spin battery' is potentially a very
efficient energy source.  From the presentation:

The Spin Battery -- Stewart E. Barnes
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~barnes/SpinBattery.pdf


Cool!

For non-nanoparticle magnets, I thought it was more in the range of joules 
per cc for magnetizing typical PM magnets, not kilojoules per cc.  A 
non-free-energy magnet motor might put out impressive wattage if it had 
enough KG of magnets in its moving parts.



(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[pagnucco]

Though not a direct answer, the following may be relevant:

Extracting Work from a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing Quantum Coherence
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/862.short

Extracting Energy from a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing
Quantum Coherence: III. Master Equation Derivation
http://www.maik.ru/full/lasphys/03/3/lasphys3_03p375full.pdf

Extracting work from a single thermal bath via quantum negentropy
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.220601

Information erasure without an energy cost
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5330.pdf

(Video) Erasure of information under conservation laws
http://qutube.ethz.ch/item/4

-- Lou Pagnucco

Dave Roberson wrote:
 Is there a method by which we can measure the amount of energy contained
 within the spin sources and sinks?  In principal I agree with you that
 there are alternate sources of energy that can be tapped.  A good example
 is the storage of gravitational energy when a mass is placed higher in the
 field.  Every force supports energy storage when work is done against the
 field and not dissipated as heat.


 The big question is how much energy can be stored by the spin magnet and
 how efficiently can it be absorbed and extracted in a cycle?  A related
 question would be: do certain materials contain natural large levels of
 spin energy that can be extracted leaving them depleted?  It appears that
 you are more interested in developing materials that are designed with
 spin energy storage in mind.  This would be an excellent goal if the
 energy density can be sufficient and the storage and extraction processes
 kept efficient.


 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 10:05 am
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


   To go a bit further .. which is way out on a fragile limb
 g

   … in thermodynamics, heat goes to a heat-sink but spin plays
 no role. In spin-dynamics, spin goes to a spin-sink and heat plays no
 role.
 The two should be combined, in order to accurately calculate CoE.

   That is a bit naïve but essentially it summarizes this
 hypothesis - as epitomized in the reality of a magmo which captures
 magnetic
 spin by incorporating the spin-sink (macro-level of torque) as the
 essential
 feature of its operation.


   From: David Roberson

   Jones,

   If it performed that well, then it would be
 interesting.  That amount of power extracted over such a long time period
 would represent a large amount of energy.  I tend to think of the energy
 stored in a magnet as being relatively small since you can take an
 unmagnetized piece of material and magnetize it with a modest amount of
 input energy.  Since I have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there
 is
%

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[pagnucco]

I forgot to include this one:

Photon steam engines
'Work can be extracted from a single heat bath at the boundary
between classical and quantum thermodynamics'
http://cm.physics.tamu.edu/cmseminars/cm_talks/2004_04_14_Scully_M.pdf

Various conservation laws can be used to extract heat from a single bath.


 Though not a direct answer, the following may be relevant:

 Extracting Work from a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing Quantum Coherence
 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/862.short

 Extracting Energy from a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing
 Quantum Coherence: III. Master Equation Derivation
 http://www.maik.ru/full/lasphys/03/3/lasphys3_03p375full.pdf

 Extracting work from a single thermal bath via quantum negentropy
 http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.220601

 Information erasure without an energy cost
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5330.pdf

 (Video) Erasure of information under conservation laws
 http://qutube.ethz.ch/item/4

 -- Lou Pagnucco
[...]

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

Dave,

The energy available from spin appears to be in the range of combustion, for
instance; but even if it is less, spin is often convertible in a lossless
way – as torque.

You can find out more by searching for high-spin molecules, high spin
nuclei, and “ferrimagnetism,” not to be confused with ferromagnetism. It is
all about “ordering” and latent energy going from order to disorder.
Ferrimagnetism can be made to be essentially very high in spin, but very low
in heat. This is in conflict with CoE, as it is now worded.

The conversion of torque to heat, at the extremes of force leverage - can be
deceptive even in traditional CoE calculation – to point of meaningless.
High torque engines, like the old steam locomotive - can propel a million
pound freight train at 50 mph with less than a hundred horsepower, for
instance. Does that make sense - as to the proportionality of converting
torque to its thermodynamic equivalent ? And it gets far worse when a magmo
is all torque and no heat.

Some information on this subject is subject to NDA but you can see from
Wiki, the expert on all things, that with ferrimagnetic materials, the
moments of atoms (grains or excitons) can appear to be opposed (as in
antiferromagnetism). But in ferrimagnetism, the moments can be engineered to
be far from mutual neutralization or cancelation, since so-called
“spontaneous magnetization” can shift field-lines with low stimulation.
These field-lines are not really an abstraction – since they can provide
real induction and spin energy.
 
Ferrimagnetism is exhibited by many ferrites, including  the classic:
magnetite. There is a long history in the lore of “free energy” and myth in
general - relating to magnetite. Are you familiar with Brand’s “Long Now
Foundation”?

http://blog.longnow.org/02007/12/27/lodestone-unloads-a-new-surprise/

From: David Roberson

Is there a method by which we can measure the amount of
energy contained within the spin sources and sinks?  In principal I agree
with you that there are alternate sources of energy that can be tapped.  A
good example is the storage of gravitational energy when a mass is placed
higher in the field.  Every force supports energy storage when work is done
against the field and not dissipated as heat. 

The big question is how much energy can be stored by the
spin magnet and how efficiently can it be absorbed and extracted in a cycle?
A related question would be: do certain materials contain natural large
levels of spin energy that can be extracted leaving them depleted?  It
appears that you are more interested in developing materials that are
designed with spin energy storage in mind.  This would be an excellent goal
if the energy density can be sufficient and the storage and extraction
processes kept efficient.

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To go a bit further .. which is way out on a fragile limbg
… in thermodynamics, heat goes to a heat-sink but spin plays no role. In
spin-dynamics, spin goes to a spin-sink and heat plays no role. The two
should be combined, in order to accurately calculate CoE.

That is a bit naïve but essentially it
summarizes this
hypothesis - as epitomized in the reality of a magmo which
captures magnetic spin by incorporating the spin-sink (macro-level of
torque) as the essential feature of its operation.


From: David Roberson 

Jones,

If it performed that well, then it would be interesting.
That amount of power extracted over such a long time period would represent
a large amount of energy.  I tend to think of the energy stored in a magnet
as being relatively small since you can take an unmagnetized piece of
material and magnetize it with a modest amount of input energy.  Since I
have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there is the same amount of
energy available as is needed to achieve that state. 


Dave - Your point about CoE is exactly the one which I was
struggling to address in the first post. I think that energy
(redefined) is conserved.


 
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Analog Fan]

How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards Sterling's 
capers?

As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free energy scams 
Sterling has been involved with. The South African trip, Perendev, Mylow, 
Intelligentry, Green Power - you name it, Sterling's fallen for it. I've been 
reading his site for years and just when I think Sterling couldn't be fooled 
again, he is.

Sterling raised ~$4000 for his supporters for this trip, with talk of extended 
videos and validations, and some 'investigative journalism' of the amazing 
Yildiz magnet motor that will usher in the new age of free energy. Instead all 
we get is weak excuses and useless videos, plus a motor that barely works 
powering a 30 watt fan for a few hours. This is the second time Sterling has 
done this recently, with his South African trip coming to mind as a similar 
boondoggle where he raises money then absolutely fails to deliver. It's not 
science or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free energy.

As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example of the perils of 
magical thinking, which is unfortunately so common. His continual boosterism 
has crossed the line from an interest to a pathological obsession. As 
Sterling's personal finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the 
site), he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the illusion 
of free energy just around the corner. Apart from his fervent belief in the 
supernatural (e.g. he believed due to numerology he would be president in 2004 
- see http://www.greaterthings.com/Word-Number/People/SDA_President_04), he has 
also had several emotional breakdowns on PES video's recently, and it saddens 
me to see he is unable to put aside his obsessions and realize that he really 
needs professional help at this point.

His BS filter is so broken that he doesn't appear to do any research at all on 
the schemes he promotes, nor does he follow up with previous schemes. A recent 
example is the Nigerian inventor Gabriel Ohiochioya Obadan and his Cogar 
'reactor' posted last week. The first hit on Google for that name is a recent 
SEC document illustrating the inventors involvement in a $1m scam, but Sterling 
(a) didn't do the research and (b) removed comments pointing this out on his 
blog. Extremely troubling.

An older example is the 'sponsorship' of PESwiki by Green Power/Michael 
Spitzauer several years ago, where Sterling was directly paid by one of these 
schemes. Although there is a vague warning now on the PESwiki page for Green 
Power, Sterling never mentioned that Spitzauer had a previous history of fraud 
and deception (e.g. a six year prison sentence in Austria in 1992 for fraud, 
and another $1m in fraud in Seattle as shown in this 1997 article  
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970929slug=2563209) 
and Green Power Inc ended up bankrupt in 2011 
(http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/01/17/2438485/port-of-pasco-to-sell-parts-from.html).
 Spitzauer raised $20m for Green Power, much of which came from unsophisticated 
'Mom and Pop' investors in rural Washington, and Sterling directly benefited 
from the proceeds.

As for Yildiz and his 'motor', he's been working this story for 33 years 
allegedly. The trail of broken promises looks exactly like every other similar 
story on PESwiki, and will end the same way.


AF



- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
demo. 

That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what is
specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
trickery.

Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but
it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is
still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for fuel in the
sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when
we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the
apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of
thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in
more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a spin sink which is
torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. 

Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. Yildiz's
motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the
system could still be conservative in the context

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Vorl Bek]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote:

 How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards 
 Sterling's capers?
 
 As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free 
 energy scams Sterling has been involved with. It's not science
 or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free
 energy.
 
 As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example 
 of the perils of magical thinking, which is unfortunately 
 so common. His continual boosterism has crossed the line from an
 interest to a pathological obsession. As Sterling's personal
 finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the site),
 he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the
 illusion of free energy just around the corner.

It wasn't hard to see more or less how it would turn out, but I
originally looked at the Yildiz saga as entertainment. At this
point, though, it is more sad than anything else.

Sterling abandoned the demo for today and went to France to see the
'Kapagen Villa', another overunity scam of some kind.

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

Well, back on the farm, they say that even a blind sow finds an acorn once
in a while. This story is still unfolding, and perhaps the best thing that
can happen to Yildiz now - is to rest his case on the opinion and reputation
of Dr. Duarte ... and not to mention the PESN connection. If he can get a
longer run in before leaving Geneva, all the better. 

I have not heard anything negative so far on Dr. Duarte, who is employed at
a fairly prestigious University and has his own reputation on the line. 

The 5.5 hour run stands on its own as some kind of anomaly, does it not?


-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 

Analog Fan wrote:

 How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards 
 Sterling's capers?
 
 As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free 
 energy scams Sterling has been involved with. It's not science
 or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free
 energy.
 
 As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example 
 of the perils of magical thinking, which is unfortunately 
 so common. His continual boosterism has crossed the line from an
 interest to a pathological obsession. As Sterling's personal
 finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the site),
 he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the
 illusion of free energy just around the corner.

It wasn't hard to see more or less how it would turn out, but I
originally looked at the Yildiz saga as entertainment. At this
point, though, it is more sad than anything else.

Sterling abandoned the demo for today and went to France to see the
'Kapagen Villa', another overunity scam of some kind.

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

At least Sterling is having fun!  There have been so many failed attempts at 
infinite energy magnetic motors that it would be an incredible surprise to see 
one that actually works.  I remain skeptical in this field but would love to 
find out that I am wrong.


All I ask is for someone to show me a source of energy that is being depleted 
as work is being done by a motor and I will listen.  If the source of energy is 
simple as by some form of recharging from the power mains, then perhaps a new 
battery exists that might be revolutionary.  That would be great.  If someone 
figures out how to take energy out of the environment by cooling the local air, 
maybe he is on to something although the present laws of thermodynamics might 
disagree with his technique.  At least the source is virtually unlimited.


All of the magmos that I have seen suffer from the need to recharge often if 
much power is delivered to a load since the energy stored within magnetic 
fields appears too limited to be of much practical use.  This situation would 
be immediately modified if it is possible to extract the energy form the 
earth's field at a reasonable rate and I leave that door open a tiny bit so 
maybe one day someone will find a way in.  I advise that you not hold your 
breath until that occurs.


Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote:

 How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards 
 Sterling's capers?
 
 As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free 
 energy scams Sterling has been involved with. It's not science
 or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free
 energy.
 
 As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example 
 of the perils of magical thinking, which is unfortunately 
 so common. His continual boosterism has crossed the line from an
 interest to a pathological obsession. As Sterling's personal
 finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the site),
 he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the
 illusion of free energy just around the corner.

It wasn't hard to see more or less how it would turn out, but I
originally looked at the Yildiz saga as entertainment. At this
point, though, it is more sad than anything else.

Sterling abandoned the demo for today and went to France to see the
'Kapagen Villa', another overunity scam of some kind.


 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

I agree that a 5.5 hour run seems a bit longer than expected unless the magnets 
associated with the experiment contained enough energy to allow this.  Do you 
know whether or not anyone measured the fields of these before and after the 
run was completed?  I recall mention that one or more was out of place leading 
to the end of the experiment.  Could it be possible that the magnets 
intentionally move as the energy is being extracted by a motor mechanism?  Just 
asking.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 2:35 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


Well, back on the farm, they say that even a blind sow finds an acorn once
in a while. This story is still unfolding, and perhaps the best thing that
can happen to Yildiz now - is to rest his case on the opinion and reputation
of Dr. Duarte ... and not to mention the PESN connection. If he can get a
longer run in before leaving Geneva, all the better. 

I have not heard anything negative so far on Dr. Duarte, who is employed at
a fairly prestigious University and has his own reputation on the line. 

The 5.5 hour run stands on its own as some kind of anomaly, does it not?


-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 

Analog Fan wrote:

 How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards 
 Sterling's capers?
 
 As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free 
 energy scams Sterling has been involved with. It's not science
 or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free
 energy.
 
 As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example 
 of the perils of magical thinking, which is unfortunately 
 so common. His continual boosterism has crossed the line from an
 interest to a pathological obsession. As Sterling's personal
 finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the site),
 he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the
 illusion of free energy just around the corner.

It wasn't hard to see more or less how it would turn out, but I
originally looked at the Yildiz saga as entertainment. At this
point, though, it is more sad than anything else.

Sterling abandoned the demo for today and went to France to see the
'Kapagen Villa', another overunity scam of some kind.




 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

Don't forget that there are two ways to violate of CoE. Either by the
creation of energy or by the destruction energy.
Harry


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 At least Sterling is having fun!  There have been so many failed attempts
 at infinite energy magnetic motors that it would be an incredible surprise
 to see one that actually works.  I remain skeptical in this field but would
 love to find out that I am wrong.

  All I ask is for someone to show me a source of energy that is being
 depleted as work is being done by a motor and I will listen.  If the source
 of energy is simple as by some form of recharging from the power mains,
 then perhaps a new battery exists that might be revolutionary.  That would
 be great.  If someone figures out how to take energy out of the environment
 by cooling the local air, maybe he is on to something although the present
 laws of thermodynamics might disagree with his technique.  At least the
 source is virtually unlimited.

  All of the magmos that I have seen suffer from the need to recharge
 often if much power is delivered to a load since the energy stored within
 magnetic fields appears too limited to be of much practical use.  This
 situation would be immediately modified if it is possible to extract the
 energy form the earth's field at a reasonable rate and I leave that door
 open a tiny bit so maybe one day someone will find a way in.  I advise that
 you not hold your breath until that occurs.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 2:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

  On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
 Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote:

  How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards
  Sterling's capers?
 
  As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free
  energy scams Sterling has been involved with. It's not science
  or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free
  energy.
 
  As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example
  of the perils of magical thinking, which is unfortunately
  so common. His continual boosterism has crossed the line from an
  interest to a pathological obsession. As Sterling's personal
  finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the site),
  he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the
  illusion of free energy just around the corner.

 It wasn't hard to see more or less how it would turn out, but I
 originally looked at the Yildiz saga as entertainment. At this
 point, though, it is more sad than anything else.

 Sterling abandoned the demo for today and went to France to see the
 'Kapagen Villa', another overunity scam of some kind.

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

At 11:34 AM 4/13/2013, Jones Beene wrote:

I have not heard anything negative so far on Dr. Duarte, who is employed at
a fairly prestigious University and has his own reputation on the line.


http://pesn.com/2013/04/12/9602294_Yildiz-All-Magnet-Motor_Demo_Report_April-12/

You will see in the many videos I've posted that Assistant Professor 
Jorge Duarte from the University of Eindhoven in The Netherlands is a 
staunch supporter of the motor. He appears not as an independent 
scientist but as an advocate from the team, which is more the role he 
is comfortable with. He told us a couple of nights ago, It is not a 
matter of belief for me. It is knowledge. There is no doubt. I've 
seen inside.



The 5.5 hour run stands on its own as some kind of anomaly, does it not?


As a black box, with a (say) 50W prop, it's interesting -- but way 
short of convincing. (But coupled with the other demos, dismantling 
it in public -- Delft) I think it's way above pure scam and merits 
further evaluation.


In general I've been happy with Sterling's visits (I put up a small 
amount for this trip). I just wish he wouldn't accept gifts (other 
than meals and local hospitality). He investigates everything, but 
he's quite quick to call not working or even scam (an in Rossi's 
case, to go from scam to promising).

Fwd: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Eric Walker]

Somehow that went straight to Analog -- copying the list.

Eric

-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
To: Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com


Hi Analog,

Thanks for the informative history.

How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards Sterling's
 capers?


His capers seem harmless.  Anyone who reads his articles immediately gets a
sense of the conceptual framework he uses to assess the things he's looking
into.  Often, reading between the lines, you can find some really
interesting tidbits, as with his recent writeup of his visit to Defkalion.
 Raising 4000 dollars to report in his manner on a questionable product in
Africa does not seem to be a big a deal.  If he were a cunning man, who
seemed to be effective at defrauding people, I think such concerns would be
more on the mark.  But he seems well-intentioned, he's providing a service
and he's not moving large amounts of money around.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:54:08 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
All I ask is for someone to show me a source of energy that is being depleted 
as work is being done by a motor and I will listen.  If the source of energy 
is simple as by some form of recharging from the power mains, then perhaps a 
new battery exists that might be revolutionary.  That would be great.  If 
someone figures out how to take energy out of the environment by cooling the 
local air, maybe he is on to something although the present laws of 
thermodynamics might disagree with his technique.  At least the source is 
virtually unlimited.

I can think of at least three different possible energy sources:-

1) Thermal environmental energy. (Second law violation)
2) Accelerated decay energy of isotopes in the magnets. (144Nd/147Sm/148Sm)
3) Van Allen belts. Particularly applicable to magic magnet motors as the
rotation rate may well be in sync. with the cyclotron frequency of some orbital
protons. This one is pretty useless, except for powering laptops. :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[mixent]

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:32:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Don't forget that there are two ways to violate of CoE. Either by the
creation of energy or by the destruction energy.
Harry

That opens an interesting possibility. Suppose that heat could be converted into
neutrino/anti-neutrino pairs, which then escaped. No thermal balance, hence the
substance would spontaneously cool down.
One can broaden the concept to include various types of conversion other than
into neutrinos.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Event:2013:Yildiz_Magnet_Motor_Demos#Saturday.2C_April_13.2C_10:20_pm_GMT:_Visit_to_Refuge7

(Starts with some weird Ronny/Refuge7 stuff, which needs a separate thread)


Speaking of Mr. Yildiz and the Top 5, his wight [weight?] there is diminishing 
for the following reasons:

He's not as close as I had thought to being ready for production.

It is difficult to work with him; and this is one of the primary reasons he 
still is not in the market though he's had this technology developed well 
enough to bring in funding for at least 15 years. There is some good talent 
coming forward to help him now, which will take the edge off of this weakness; 
but it is still a significant drawback.

The motor will not be easy to replicate. Too many magnets, too easy to not 
get them just right.

Though it could be good for an open license, the difficulty of replicating 
will make it less easy to have it go viral. 

I'm going to be working on a list of reasons why I think his motor is 
legitimate. However, it takes a lot more than just a working technology for the 
technology to be successful in going to market. 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

Alan,


You mention that it takes more than technology to make a successful product 
introduction.  That is very true.


Has anyone figured out a theory as to where the energy comes from to drive the 
motor?  Are the magnets depleted with time?


I recall an earlier discussion about slowly taking the energy out of a magnet 
by introducing small pellets of iron into the original field.  Work can be done 
on each one as it is allowed to enter the field and a process related to this 
might be capable of slowly exchanging magnetic field energy for mechanical 
work.  Someone then linked to a toy accelerator that performed this function 
using steel balls and permanent magnets.  The toy proved that this was possible 
in real life experimentation.


A magician might be able to construct a magnet motor which uses a set of gears 
to slowly adjust the distance to the energy storage magnets as they are 
depleted.  I am not saying that this is what is occurring in this case, but 
that it might be possible to work.  It is apparent from the videos that the 
magnets surrounding the motor rotor are extremely powerful.  I suspect that a 
great deal of energy is stored within the fields of the many units contained 
inside the motor.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 11:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke  down


http://peswiki.com/index.php/Event:2013:Yildiz_Magnet_Motor_Demos#Saturday.2C_April_13.2C_10:20_pm_GMT:_Visit_to_Refuge7

(Starts with some weird Ronny/Refuge7 stuff, which needs a separate thread)


Speaking of Mr. Yildiz and the Top 5, his wight [weight?] there is diminishing 
for the following reasons:

He's not as close as I had thought to being ready for production.

It is difficult to work with him; and this is one of the primary reasons he 
still is not in the market though he's had this technology developed well 
enough 
to bring in funding for at least 15 years. There is some good talent coming 
forward to help him now, which will take the edge off of this weakness; but it 
is still a significant drawback.

The motor will not be easy to replicate. Too many magnets, too easy to not 
get them just right.

Though it could be good for an open license, the difficulty of replicating 
will make it less easy to have it go viral. 

I'm going to be working on a list of reasons why I think his motor is 
legitimate. However, it takes a lot more than just a working technology for the 
technology to be successful in going to market. 


 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[William Beaty]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:


You gotta love magic magnet motors. So beguiling! Reports like this come in
every year or so. Nothing ever seems to come of them. The person
demonstrating the motor never produces 10 of them to sell to other people,
or does anything else.


1. Figure out a flywheel-toy which employs a very slight conventional 
static b-field force to power the flywheel, and at the same time is 
demagnetizing some permanent magnets.


2. Futz with your design until it can keep itself spinning for several 
hours before requiring that the magnets be repositioned.


3. PROFIT

:)

I don't know if such a thing is even possible.  But from the history of 
the magnet motor crowd, probably it can be done, just as long as the 
rotor has near zero load and only must supply frictional losses to some 
extremely low-friction bearings.



I once offered one of these people $10,000 for a copy. After a few days he
politely declined.


You're an obvious idea-thief!  :)  Trying to walk away with billions which 
should be his alone!!!  He'd better bury his device in his back yard and 
stop discussing it, the way Clem supposedly did with the self-running 
vegetable-oil rotor engine.





(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

 From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
 Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:16:29 PM

 I don't know if such a thing is even possible.  But from the history
 of the magnet motor crowd, probably it can be done, just as long as
 the rotor has near zero load and only must supply frictional losses to
 some extremely low-friction bearings.

Except that it has usually been demonstrated with a propeller attached to the 
shaft, currently a 10 (diameter) x 16 (pitch)
http://www.modellbau-hp.de/xtcommerce/Flugzubehoer/Luftschrauben/APC-Elektro/APC-Luftschraube-16-x-10-Elektro-Propeller-40-6-x-25-4-in-cm::1286.html

It ran 5 1/2 hours around 2500 rpm. (In previous public demos the fan was 
pointed into a tube, and the velocity measured at the exit. The mass of air 
accelerated (velocity * area) can be used to calculate the power.  ISTR it was 
about 1/2 horsepower -- with a different fan. 

I guess you could get a motor and the same fan and see what HP is needed to get 
it to 2500 rpm. (There should be thrust v rpm data somewhere for similar 
propellers).

Definitely non-zero.

Thrust calculator
http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/4223215501/staticthrust.htm
Plugging diameter 10 pitch 16 2500 rpm and 100% efficiency gives 12W = 0.02 HP

(Seems a bit low? )

They are now demonstrating with a smaller, less controllable motor.

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

Oops : 16 x 10 (not 10 x 16)

Thrust calculator
http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/4223215501/staticthrust.htm
Plugging diameter 16 pitch 10 2500 rpm and 100% efficiency gives
55W = 0.07HP

I'm nor sure what the efficiency is for converting electrical input to motor 
shaft output. 80-90% ? 

It does go up very rapidly with RPM

2000 :  25W
2500 :  50W
3000 :  85W
3500 : 135W
4000 : 202W

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[James Bowery]

The air flow is restricted by the small distance between the motor and the
blades.  My intuition is that this restriction in mass flow would translate
into a restriction in air velocity output hence be the equivalent of
lowering the RPM proportionate the the lowering of mass flow.  I base this
on my surmise that the non-linear increase in power with RPM is due to the
v^2 term of kinetic energy,


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 Oops : 16 x 10 (not 10 x 16)

 Thrust calculator
 http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/4223215501/staticthrust.htm
 Plugging diameter 16 pitch 10 2500 rpm and 100% efficiency gives
 55W = 0.07HP

 I'm nor sure what the efficiency is for converting electrical input to
 motor shaft output. 80-90% ?

 It does go up very rapidly with RPM

 2000 :  25W
 2500 :  50W
 3000 :  85W
 3500 : 135W
 4000 : 202W

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
demo. 

That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what is
specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
trickery.

Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but
it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is
still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for fuel in the
sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when
we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the
apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of
thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in
more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a spin sink which is
torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. 

Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. Yildiz's
motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the
system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input -
“order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that
providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and
torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to
torque than to heat.

Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as
pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as a
physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets
express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and
mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is
large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable -
spin.

Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as
in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy
density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system but
it is not the only determinant of it.
 
If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no
demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a
magmo is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a
non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a
higher-value for of energy - torque. 

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
 demo.


There is negativity because there has been so much nonsense with magnetic
motor claims. A lot of people have been burned. We are jaded. It is unfair
to blame this person for previous mag. motor screw ups, but that's human
nature. Sort of like denigrating McKubre because Rossi makes an ass of
himself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[James Bowery]

Rather than complaining about negativity or going on, as Sterling does,
about the energy of the people at the booth, how about helping out guys
like Fletcher who are doing the hard work?


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
 demo.

 That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
 Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what
 is
 specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
 allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
 trickery.

 Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but
 it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
 spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
 compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is
 still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for fuel in
 the
 sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when
 we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the
 apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of
 thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in
 more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a spin sink which
 is
 torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary.

 Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines.
 Yildiz's
 motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the
 system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input
 -
 “order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that
 providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and
 torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to
 torque than to heat.

 Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as
 pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as
 a
 physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets
 express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and
 mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is
 large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable -
 spin.

 Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as
 in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy
 density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system
 but
 it is not the only determinant of it.

 If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no
 demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a
 magmo is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a
 non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a
 higher-value for of energy - torque.

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

Jones,


If all they are doing is draining energy from stored magnets then that will run 
out fairly soon.  Most are expecting to see a device that runs essentially 
forever.  At least that is what I am looking for.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 7:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
demo. 

That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what is
specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
trickery.

Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but
it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is
still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for fuel in the
sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when
we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the
apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of
thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in
more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a spin sink which is
torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. 

Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. Yildiz's
motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the
system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input -
“order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that
providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and
torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to
torque than to heat.

Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as
pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as a
physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets
express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and
mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is
large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable -
spin.

Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as
in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy
density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system but
it is not the only determinant of it.
 
If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no
demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a
magmo is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a
non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a
higher-value for of energy - torque. 

Jones


 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Terry Blanton]

Jaded, yes.  As one who spent over 2 years pursuing the magmo, I can
honestly say that I am jaded.

There is no larger reservoir of magmo configurations nor physical
magnets than those of the now defunct M International.  We spent about
2 megabucks.

If you want to give an idea a try, we have the magnets.  Just give me a buzz.

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Terry Blanton]

Just one other statement.  Magnets in repulsion can be made to appear
to be successful in a magmo.  But the magnets are degraded in each
cycle of the motor, much like striking the magnet with a hammer in
each cycle.  Eventually it fails.

Magnetic motors working in attraction mode do not degrade the magnets;
but, my experience is that the cycle is conservative.

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[pagnucco]

Pardon if this is old news, but a 'spin battery' is potentially a very
efficient energy source.  From the presentation:

The Spin Battery -- Stewart E. Barnes
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~barnes/SpinBattery.pdf

(SLIDE 30) Theoretical Maximum
If one changes the magnetic state it is possible
to recover the Jsd ~ 4eV exchange energy.
This gives 4.0 x 10^6 J/kg.

Also see -
Theoretical spin battery could see magnet powered cars
http://www.gizmag.com/spin-battery-magnet/11271/

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
 It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for
 this demo.

 That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
 Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what
 is
 specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
 allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
 trickery.

 Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical,
 but it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
 spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
 [...]

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

Dave, 

 

What if it runs for 1000 hrs at an average power of 100 watts ? Based on what 
he has told others, tempered by the reality of grossly overestimating the power 
output - this could be possible.  

 

It may not be ideal but it would be new physics and it would probably have 
commercial value.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Jones, 

 

If all they are doing is draining energy from stored magnets then that will run 
out fairly soon.  Most are expecting to see a device that runs essentially 
forever.  At least that is what I am looking for.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 7:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
demo. 
 
That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what is
specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
trickery.
 
Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but
it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is
still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for fuel in the
sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when
we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the
apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of
thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in
more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a spin sink which is
torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. 
 
Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. Yildiz's
motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the
system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input -
“order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that
providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and
torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to
torque than to heat.
 
Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as
pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as a
physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets
express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and
mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is
large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable -
spin.
 
Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as
in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy
density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system but
it is not the only determinant of it.
 
If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no
demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a
magmo is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a
non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a
higher-value for of energy - torque. 
 
Jones
 

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

Yes I agree with your summary, Terry - but it does not have to be
either/or in terms of repulsion/attraction. Both is possible.

Take a lot at his patent application. He is doing something different.

It's hard to say what is different, unless you speak good German, but I hope
you will take a closer look in the context of what you experienced at M. 

Patrick Kelly has a partial translation on his site.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter1.pdf


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Just one other statement.  Magnets in repulsion can be made to appear
to be successful in a magmo.  But the magnets are degraded in each
cycle of the motor, much like striking the magnet with a hammer in
each cycle.  Eventually it fails.

Magnetic motors working in attraction mode do not degrade the magnets;
but, my experience is that the cycle is conservative.

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jones Beene]

Lou,

This is very interesting, but being mostly related to electronics, it does
not appear to be all that close to what Yildiz is doing … yet spintronics of
a different sort could be involved somehow.

Spintronics is a new way of incorporating nano-magnetic effects into
electronics, which they have done in the spin-battery - but maybe
spintronics has been inadvertently incorporated into magnets, in order to
get much higher performance without using circuits, per se.


-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

Pardon if this is old news, but a 'spin battery' is potentially a very
efficient energy source.  From the presentation:

The Spin Battery -- Stewart E. Barnes
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~barnes/SpinBattery.pdf

(SLIDE 30) Theoretical Maximum
If one changes the magnetic state it is possible
to recover the Jsd ~ 4eV exchange energy.
This gives 4.0 x 10^6 J/kg.

Also see -
Theoretical spin battery could see magnet powered cars
http://www.gizmag.com/spin-battery-magnet/11271/

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
 It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for
 this demo.

 That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
 Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what
 is
 specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
 allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
 trickery.

 Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical,
 but it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to
stored
 spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
 [...]

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[pagnucco]

Jones,

I believe that this places an approximate upper bound on how much energy
can be stored in the magnetic field of a Kg of material without an
externally supplied current, and that, if the output exceeds this bound,
some other energy source is being tapped.  The energy density given in the
presentation for the spin battery is up to 10X that of Li-ion batteries.

Perhaps, there is something I am overlooking.  Comments are welcome.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Been wrote:
 This is very interesting, but being mostly related to electronics, it does
 not appear to be all that close to what Yildiz is doing … yet
 spintronics of
 a different sort could be involved somehow.

 Spintronics is a new way of incorporating nano-magnetic effects into
 electronics, which they have done in the spin-battery - but maybe
 spintronics has been inadvertently incorporated into magnets, in order to
 get much higher performance without using circuits, per se.


 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Pardon if this is old news, but a 'spin battery' is potentially a very
 efficient energy source.  From the presentation:

 The Spin Battery -- Stewart E. Barnes
 http://www.physics.miami.edu/~barnes/SpinBattery.pdf

 (SLIDE 30) Theoretical Maximum
 If one changes the magnetic state it is possible
 to recover the Jsd ~ 4eV exchange energy.
 This gives 4.0 x 10^6 J/kg.

 Also see -
 Theoretical spin battery could see magnet powered cars
 http://www.gizmag.com/spin-battery-magnet/11271/

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Jones Beene wrote:
 It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for
 this demo.

 That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
 Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but
 what
 is
 specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
 allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
 trickery.

 Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical,
 but it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to
 stored
 spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can
 be
 [...]

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

Jones,


If it performed that well, then it would be interesting.  That amount of power 
extracted over such a long time period would represent a large amount of 
energy.  I tend to think of the energy stored in a magnet as being relatively 
small since you can take an unmagnetized piece of material and magnetize it 
with a modest amount of input energy.  Since I have a hang up concerning COE, I 
assume that there is the same amount of energy available as is needed to 
achieve that state.


I need to observe a source that is depleted as work is extracted.  In cold 
fusion, the mass of the reacting elements is depleted.  According to the old 
famous equation the energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared a 
relatively tiny amount of mass can supply a large amount of energy.  The mass 
increase due to a magnetic field being generated is incredibly small and it can 
apparently be extracted as suggested by these types of motors.  The main 
problem is that the magnet energy must be inputted prior to extraction.  In 
this case you have a device that behaves more like a battery than one that 
frees vast reserves of untapped stored energy.


It would be wonderful to see one of these motors deliver the performance that 
you suggest may be possible and I will change my mind quickly if that occurs.


Dave 



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 10:54 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down



Dave, 
 
What if it runs for 1000hrs at an average power of 100 watts ? Based on what he 
has told others, temperedby the reality of grossly overestimating the power 
output - this could be possible. 
 
It may not be ideal but itwould be new physics and it would probably have 
commercial value.
 
 
From:David Roberson 
 
Jones, 

 

If all they are doing is draining energy from stored magnets thenthat will run 
out fairly soon.  Most are expecting to see a device thatruns essentially 
forever.  At least that is what I am looking for.

 

Dave



-OriginalMessage-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 7:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this
demo. 
 
That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what is
specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
trickery.
 
Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but
it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored
spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be
compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is
still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for fuel in the
sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when
we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the
apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of
thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in
more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a spin sink which is
torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. 
 
Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. Yildiz's
motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the
system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input -
“order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that
providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and
torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to
torque than to heat.
 
Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as
pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as a
physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets
express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and
mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is
large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable -
spin.
 
Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as
in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy
density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system but
it is not the only determinant of it.
 
If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no
demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a
magmo is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a
non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a
higher-value for of energy - torque. 
 
Jones
 


 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

Lou,


Are you suggesting that there is a natural store of magnetic spin energy which 
can be tapped by one of these devices?  I am under the impression that they are 
extracting the overall magnetic energy due to internal alignment of the 
magnetic domains.


In your concept, what does a material that has this energy depleted behave as?  
How would it differ from other chunks of the same type that are fresh?


Is there any way to measure a before and after effect other than by measuring 
the change in external fields?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 12:06 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


Jones,

I believe that this places an approximate upper bound on how much energy
can be stored in the magnetic field of a Kg of material without an
externally supplied current, and that, if the output exceeds this bound,
some other energy source is being tapped.  The energy density given in the
presentation for the spin battery is up to 10X that of Li-ion batteries.

Perhaps, there is something I am overlooking.  Comments are welcome.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Been wrote:
 This is very interesting, but being mostly related to electronics, it does
 not appear to be all that close to what Yildiz is doing … yet
 spintronics of
 a different sort could be involved somehow.

 Spintronics is a new way of incorporating nano-magnetic effects into
 electronics, which they have done in the spin-battery - but maybe
 spintronics has been inadvertently incorporated into magnets, in order to
 get much higher performance without using circuits, per se.


 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Pardon if this is old news, but a 'spin battery' is potentially a very
 efficient energy source.  From the presentation:

 The Spin Battery -- Stewart E. Barnes
 http://www.physics.miami.edu/~barnes/SpinBattery.pdf

 (SLIDE 30) Theoretical Maximum
 If one changes the magnetic state it is possible
 to recover the Jsd ~ 4eV exchange energy.
 This gives 4.0 x 10^6 J/kg.

 Also see -
 Theoretical spin battery could see magnet powered cars
 http://www.gizmag.com/spin-battery-magnet/11271/

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Jones Beene wrote:
 It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for
 this demo.

 That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on
 Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but
 what
 is
 specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been
 allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no
 trickery.

 Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical,
 but it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to
 stored
 spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can
 be
 [...]





 

[Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Alan Fletcher]

http://pesn.com/2013/04/10/9602291_Yildiz_magnet-motor_runs_5.5-hours_at_Geneva_demo_day_1/

...
The motor ran from 10:28 am to 2:50 pm GMT, nearly 5.5 hours.

It started at 2600 rpm, then went up in speed to 2673, then down and up that 
range for about 3 hours.

Then, a magnet was loose, and the motor began to slow. Then, he said that the 
magnet alignment malfunction began to cascade so that 3 were out of line. By 
2:21, the speed was 2064. A noise could be heard from the motor, so he turned 
it off.

Then, at 3:10 pm, he turned it on again, and it went to 1930 rpm, then began 
dropping rapidly
1734 rpm at 3:12, 1522 at 3:15
He stopped it at 3:16 pm
...

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jed Rothwell]

Wonderful if true.

You gotta love magic magnet motors. So beguiling! Reports like this come in
every year or so. Nothing ever seems to come of them. The person
demonstrating the motor never produces 10 of them to sell to other people,
or does anything else.

I once offered one of these people $10,000 for a copy. After a few days he
politely declined.

I do not want to believe these reports are true, because I can't stand the
idea that the technology has been floating around for decades without any
serious effort to confirm it or develop it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[David Roberson]

I place my bets with your conclusions Jed.  Every one of these that I have 
considered do not make sense and the COE would be violated for them to work.


It will be a cold day somewhere nearby when one of these motors can be 
purchased.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 10, 2013 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down


Wonderful if true.


You gotta love magic magnet motors. So beguiling! Reports like this come in 
every year or so. Nothing ever seems to come of them. The person demonstrating 
the motor never produces 10 of them to sell to other people, or does anything 
else.


I once offered one of these people $10,000 for a copy. After a few days he 
politely declined.


I do not want to believe these reports are true, because I can't stand the idea 
that the technology has been floating around for decades without any serious 
effort to confirm it or develop it.


- Jed


 

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


 It will be a cold day somewhere nearby when one of these motors can be
 purchased.


Ah ha! Perhaps you have explained it. It is not a violation of COE because
the gadget is transferring heat from Hell to the device. A sort of heat
pump working through quantum worm holes. If you will.

Or, as you say the cold day is nearby because no one notices that the air
temperature is falling and the base of the machine is covered with frost,
like a propane bottle on a grill (only that's Boyle's law -- not magic heat
transfer).

- Jed