Re: 1997-2005 the missing SMOT years
Grimer wrote Now the implication of the magnetic lines of force not being orthogonal to the current carrying wire is that they form a tightly wind spiral which starts and finished at a charged particle. In short the charge particle is acting as a turbine taking in Chi-aether [chi being the Greek equivalent of X, the unknown ;-) ]at its south magnetic pole, say, and pumping it out at its north magnetic pole.Because of the obvious reciprocal relationship between E and M as manifest by the function of inductors and capacitors in electrical circuits for example, I have never been able to understand why if a spiral electric flux in a coil produces a linear magnetic flux along the axis of that coil, a magnetic flux in a high permeability magnetic coil doesn't produce a electric flux along the axis of that magnetic coil.I have no idea how easy it is to produce a magnetic coil - or indeed if it is practical at all - but its such an obvious thing to do that I imagine people must have done it and found nothing interesting.I now realise that I am possible looking at things the wrong way. The electric helical flux produces an effect one hierarchy down, i.e. at the magnetic flux level. Therefore one might expect a magnetic flux to also produce an effect one stage down.But what is one stage down? Perhaps it is gravity. So although SMOT is experimentally as vacuous as a man trying to fly by flapping his arms, the intuition underlying it is perfectly reasonable. Frank, the spiral ring helixobserved in a water vortex is, as Schauberger stated, a " reverse flow". Centrifugal and centripetal forces within the confines of the parabolic cone of the liquid spiral scream to us that the inner face " must" be smooth. It is NOT,it isringed with spirals. Magnetic lines of force acting on metals shavings may not show the opposing force like a water vortex simply because theyARE one stage down, Smot may have given us a glimpse. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: 1997-2005 the missing SMOT years
At 07:51 am 11-05-05 -0500, Richard wrote: Grimer wrote Now the implication of the magnetic lines of force not being orthogonal to the current carrying wire is that they form a tightly wind spiral which starts and finished at a charged particle. In short the charge particle is acting as a turbine taking in Chi-aether [chi being the Greek equivalent of X, the unknown ;-) ]at its south magnetic pole, say, and pumping it out at its north magnetic pole. Because of the obvious reciprocal relationship between E and M as manifest by the function of inductors and capacitors in electrical circuits for example, I have never been able to understand why if a spiral electric flux in a coil produces a linear magnetic flux along the axis of that coil, a magnetic flux in a high permeability magnetic coil doesn't produce a electric flux along the axis of that magnetic coil. I have no idea how easy it is to produce a magnetic coil - or indeed if it is practical at all - but its such an obvious thing to do that I imagine people must have done it and found nothing interesting. I now realise that I am possible looking at things the wrong way. The electric helical flux produces an effect one hierarchy down, i.e. at the magnetic flux level. Therefore one might expect a magnetic flux to also produce an effect one stage down. But what is one stage down? Perhaps it is gravity. So although SMOT is experimentally as vacuous as a man trying to fly by flapping his arms, the intuition underlying it is perfectly reasonable. Frank The spiral ring helix observed in a water vortex is, as Schauberger stated, a reverse flow. Centrifugal and centripetal forces within the confines of the parabolic cone of the liquid spiral scream to us that the inner face must be smooth. It is NOT, it is ringed with spirals. Magnetic lines of force acting on metals shavings may not show the opposing force like a water vortex simply because they ARE one stage down, Smot may have given us a glimpse. Richard If nothing else SMOT has made us think about the possibilities. As the myth of Icarus shows, man has dreamt of flying like the birds from ancient times but it was only a century ago that man achieved his dream. Fifty years later he had jumped over the moon. I feel sure that it will not take 50 more years for him to puzzle out the interaction between magnetism and gravity. And since you obviously have hands on experience of hydrodynamics in general and vortices in particular you are probably the Vortexian in the prime position to recognise the true nature of the magnetic field. Frank
Re: 1997-2005 the missing SMOT years
Grimer wrote If nothing else SMOT has made us think about the possibilities. I have fellowship with a retired airline pilot that has weather eye. I have mentioned the " strange" vortices shed from the main vortex created in our glass test tanks.( while the main vortex is spinning) , In particular, the horizontal vortexes that form and " coast"across the bottom of the tank. I mentioned that the severe Florida hurricane last decade had some unexplained damage from winds that may be the result of a horizontal rolling wind shear similar to a Jelly roll type cake. My pilot friend said flying 747's for years provided him all the experience he needed in unexplained wind shears including some during a perfectly clear sky. There may be a way to visualize such activity in a magnetic field if it has spiral helix properties. One method may be by the use of a ultrasonic flow meter of all things. Hmmm , thats an interesting thought. We use these type meters in our systems shop. Thinking out a test I will give it a try using a 5 HP TEFC 3 phase electric motor 480 vac under various load conditions. Ifsomething out of the ordinaryshows up, and is reproducible, I will post it. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
At 02:47 pm 04-05-05 -0400, Grimer wrote: Public wrote: Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html Wow. Notice that the magnets are moving at 90d angles from the motion of the ball in each cycle, in the movie clip. Reminds me of the SMOT. Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be the biggest thing since Relativity, It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger than relativity. PM of the first kind using static magnets goes down to the bedrock of all physics for the last couple centuries and dynamites it. I have a question. Supposing (as I believe) that magnetic lines of force are not perfectly orthogonal to electric, would that allow for the type of harnessing of the magnetic, what shall I call it, wind, perhaps? After all, to a quasi modo the magnetic flux does look extraordinarily like a violent flow of stuff from a source to a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean. The idea of tapping such a manifest cornucopia of energy is no sillier than trying to fly like a bird or emulate the cow that jumped over the moon. 8-) Harnessing such a wind would not of course constitute perpetual motion anymore than harnessing an atmospheric wind with a conventional windmill entails perpetual motion. One would merely be tapping a source of, as yet, untapped energy. Cheers Frank Grimer. === So let's think more deeply about orthogonality. In school we learn the right hand rule and Flemings left hand rule but we never ask why they aren't the other way around. And if we did we would be told to shut up - or even sent to the head and give six strokes of the whack for insolence. In general people never see the irrationality. They never see that something must be missing. If we dig and dig and dig in an attempt to understand this asymmetry we will end up with parity violation, CP violation and the fact that there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. Obviously, the equations that guided the formation of the universe must have violated the symmetry between matter and anti-matter at some stage. Personally, I see the idea the idea of the Universe being symmetrical as quite ridiculous. White is not symmetrical with black. Life is not symmetrical with death. Good is not symmetrical with evil. God is not symmetrical with the devil though I'm sure Satan would like to think so. And woman is not symmetrical with man though I'm sure that women. but I'd better stop there in the event (however unlikely) that there are some lady Vortexians. If there are any, I think they should come out. ;-) Now I'm not interested in the roots of asymmetry but merely its implications in relation to the orthogonality of electric current and magnetic field lines. In my view the problem is at root psychological and emotional. If all our lives we have seen a chess board as composed of black squares on a white ground it might not be too difficult for us to invert our view and see it as white squares on a black ground. It would be considerably more difficult to invert the shades of a negative photo which is why, for example, in 1898 the Italian photographer, Secondo Pia, got such a shock when he made the first photograph of the Shroud of Turin. Manipulation of Java applet at the following web page - http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/java/lenzlaw/ - is helpful in opening one's eyes to the missing interaction between M and E. Use your mouse to click and drag the magnet toward and away from the conducting ring. There is nothing whatever in the symmetrical geometry of the field lines to show whether the current will flow in a clockwise or widdershins direction. It is as though the ring is a huge magnifier which brings out a hidden aspect of the field lines, their chirality. But why isn't this represented at the macroscale? Why aren't magnetic field lines shown as helixes. Why isn't the irrationality of orthogonality recognised. Even the ancient Greeks recognised with the discovery of root two that it was impossible to construct an equal arm right angled triangle with real objects. I suppose the most poetic expression of the asymmetry which is hidden under apparent symmetry is that given by G K Chersterton in ORTHODOXY. = The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden;
RE: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
... BLP has tantalizing results reported by _one_ lab and an outlandish theory to explain these results which nobody else has ever achieved AFAIK. I wrote to the team at Penn State, several years ago, who had replicated one of Mill's excess heat experiments under contract. They replied that they were under an agreement not to comment on the experiment, but they did make it clear that they were astonished at the result. Craig Haynie (Houston)
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be the biggest thing since Relativity, It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger than relativity. PM of the first kind using static magnets goes down to the bedrock of all physics for the last couple centuries and dynamites it. Exactly right. What is it strange is that many of the people making these claims, including some well-educated ones, do not seem to realize this. I have never bought this notion that extraordinary claims call for blah blah blah . . . But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is not extraordinary. Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. As for Greg Watson, not only has he failed to offer solid evidence, he has failed to offer *any* evidence for his fantasies. He gives us only bloviation, fraud and empty promises. His tag line tells you what game he is in: Now it's just engineering effort, time and money . . . Translation 1: My hobby is to just sit at home and engineer ways to waste your time and separate you from your money. Translation 2: Send more money, sucker. - Jed
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Jed wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be the biggest thing since Relativity, It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger than relativity. PM of the first kind using static magnets goes down to the bedrock of all physics for the last couple centuries and dynamites it. Exactly right. What is it strange is that many of the people making these claims, including some well-educated ones, do not seem to realize this. I have never bought this notion that extraordinary claims call for blah blah blah . . . But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is not extraordinary. Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. Jed's brush is too wide. Mills does not claim 'anomalous energy', there is a measureable fuel consumption, many documentated and detailes experiments, and confirmation by other observers. He needs to do his homework more carefully. Mike Carrell
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
I wrote: I classify both cold fusion and the Mills claims as anomalous energy. Anomalous is not synonymous with unbelievable -- it just means there is no explanation. Mills, unlike CF, does not have a textbook physics explanation. That is contradictory. Obviously I meant that anomalous indicates there is no agreed-upon or generally accepted explanation yet. Hagelstein and others have proposed conventional explanations for CF, and as we all know many others have proposed unconventional theories. Mills has only proposed a highly unconventional theory that most physicists dismiss out of hand. Both the Mills theory and claims must overcome a powerful Coulomb barrier of disbelief. CF should have a somewhat easier time, in principle anyway, but in practice both CF and the Mills claims are wandering in the wilderness. - Jed
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Mike Carrell wrote: But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is not extraordinary. Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. Jed's brush is too wide. Mills does not claim 'anomalous energy' . . . I classify both cold fusion and the Mills claims as anomalous energy. Anomalous is not synonymous with unbelievable -- it just means there is no explanation. Mills, unlike CF, does not have a textbook physics explanation. He proposes to rewrite the textbooks. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean he must be cognizant of the fact that most scientists will find his claims very difficult to swallow. I am sure he knows that! Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago, is that he does not want to convince people, and that he likes things the way they are. (That was also the last thing I heard from the late James Reding while he was diligently shredding Patterson's prospects. Several CF researchers have also told me they like being big fish in a small pond.) Many years ago Mills supposedly had energy producing devices which would have convinced any reasonable engineer, such as the devices he and Thermacore developed, described by Donald Ernst in 1992. Assuming those claims were not a horrible mistake, or for some reason they could not be replicated, Mills could have easily used those devices to convince the entire world that his claims are valid. I do not know what to make of the fact that he failed to do that. I am forced to conclude that: 1. Either the claims fell through for some reason I never heard about, or 2. Mills is stark-staring crazy, like most other people in over-unity energy biz. I have heard many times that it is actually: 3. Mills is working on some ultra clever secret business scheme. But I do not believe this, because I simply cannot imagine any business strategy that would have worked better than revealing the whole thing back in 1992, and letting events take their natural course. It is hard to imagine any scenario that would have eventually worked out with Mills being less than a dozen times richer than Bill Gates by now, and him being the most famous and respected person on earth. After 14 years millions of people would have seen the effect, and I think there is simply no question Mills would have been given the full credit for it, and objections would have been swept aside by now, by the force of public opinion. . . . there is a measureable fuel consumption, many documentated and detailed experiments, and confirmation by other observers. Oh come now. Yes, we all agree that Mills has done some interesting experiments, but the confirmations by other observers hardly compares to the confirmations available for CF. Most of the confirming evidence he cited years ago was only distantly related to his claims. All this would be forgivable -- indeed it would be the only viable path forward -- if Mills had not held in his hands devices that would have convinced millions of engineers worldwide back in 1992. If you can convince engineers you do not need to worry what the physicists think. You can ignore them along with the patent office, Scientific American, and the rest of the peanut gallery. Engineers far outnumber physicists, and they have much greater access to capital and the real-world levers of power. - Jed
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
--- Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly right. What is it strange is that many of the people making these claims, including some well educated ones, do not seem to realize this. Hi Jed, So can I ship you a SMOT and the measurement system so you can prove the data I'm seeing is not real and your world is still secure ;-)? Basically the measurement system data shows: 1) The ball moves from a place of higher flux density to a place of lower flux density powered by magnets and gravity. 2) The ball has more final KE (at the place with less flux density) than it had initial PE (at the place of higher flux density). Now it's just engineering effort, time and money, Greg Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Jed Rothwell wrote: [ ... ] Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago, is that he does not want to convince people, and that he likes things the way they are. [ ... ] Many years ago Mills supposedly had energy producing devices which would have convinced any reasonable engineer, such as the devices he and Thermacore developed, described by Donald Ernst in 1992. Assuming those claims were not a horrible mistake, or for some reason they could not be replicated, Mills could have easily used those devices to convince the entire world that his claims are valid. I do not know what to make of the fact that he failed to do that. I am forced to conclude that: 1. Either the claims fell through for some reason I never heard about, or 2. Mills is stark-staring crazy, like most other people in over-unity energy biz. Most perpetual motion machine salesmen are not crazy. Why credit Mills with less sanity than them? I have heard many times that it is actually: 3. Mills is working on some ultra clever secret business scheme. But I do not believe this, because I simply cannot imagine any business strategy... It's not so hard, really, to imagine that there's a sensible strategy here. Mills has investors, right? Those are people who've given him money for this. So he _is_ getting funds for it. He has lots of interesting results but if he has anything absolutely airtight in the way of a public demonstration of something really new I must have overlooked mention of it. He has a theory which requires throwing out QM (well tested, used every day) and starting over with a clean slate. He has secrets which (he says) are revolutionary but which still aren't quite ready yet. He has produced mysterious chemicals which should be revolutionary but which somehow don't seem to have revolutionized anything, or even gotten any mention anywhere outside of Vortex. And he's been in this state for how many years? Money in, nothing out. With a theory that is very very hard to swallow, which is needed to explain results that aren't ever quite visible just yet. Is it so hard to think of a fourth possibility? Is the emporer really wearing anything at all? Hmmm. CF has reports of anomalous results from labs scattered all over the world, and it has hints of a plausible theory to give us a glimmer of what might be going on. BLP has tantalizing results reported by _one_ lab and an outlandish theory to explain these results which nobody else has ever achieved AFAIK. (Sorry, I'm crabby tonight.)
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
--- Public [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html Hi Craig, Not to be a wet blanket but that big spring in the central column could be a worry? Now it's just engineering effort, time and money, Greg Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
On Tue, 3 May 2005 16:43:39 +1000 (EST), you wrote: --- Public [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html Hi Craig, Not to be a wet blanket but that big spring in the central column could be a worry? --- In what respect? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
On Mon, 2 May 2005 10:59:26 +1000 (EST), you wrote: Guys, Several have asked and many must have wondered what happened to the SMOT and Greg Watson from 1997 to 2005. Simply stated I walked away from my research due to depression which at some time was quite severe. I turned inward, searching to understand my body and how it works instead of taking the drugs they tried to get me to take. I now consider myself a Naturopath and a much healthier and stronger person. I created a web site of what I discovered about health and aging. The missing photo are due to the breakdown of my 33 year marriage in 2002: http://optimalhealth.cia.com.au/ It's now 3 years later (2005) and I have found a new love who has inspired me to gain the strength and again confront my OU deamons which were: 1) My inability to make a 100% solid SMOT device and ship it to the 20 or so people who had sent me $150 Aus. 2) The very high level of inability experience by other folks in trying to replicate and verify my creations. 3) Infinite Energy's very negative SMOT review where the same It can't happen bias that Cold Fusion is subjected to was used against the SMOT. Conventional theory was used to say it can't be OU. NO one actually did any measurements. 4) My inability to deliver a device which could deliver significant energy to a client / potential investor. To reverse these personally damaging past events and to again become active in the OU community I created the Prometheus Effect discussion group where my focus is to ensure the underlying OU Prometheus Effect is clearly understood, can be duplicated and measured before I reveal any new devices I have build. The focus is on understanding the effect and not on building devices. Once the independent Prometheus Effect verifiers have reported back their results, I will reveal photos and a video of the toy SRRS device I'm building. --- Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html -- John Fields
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html Wow. Notice that the magnets are moving at 90d angles from the motion of the ball in each cycle, in the movie clip. Reminds me of the SMOT. Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be the biggest thing since Relativity, and I'll have to apologize to Greg. (I really don't want to do that.) Craig Haynie (Houston)
