Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
I have a recent discussion of physics forums on these experiments, rather informative, for whom is interested. https://www.physicsforums.com/conversations/bound-states-of-spinning-magnets.80338/
Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) field is a free energy gradient. The automatic flipping of the remanant flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle. It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present context. It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right up our street.. Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that the conservation laws are time-invariant. But of course this is a perfectly trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial.. The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation to the field's own finite rates of change. In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities (ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational interactions are impossible). However in material or aggregagte systems, effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light" phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with time-dependent net energies... In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be thermodynamically closed. Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output integral. In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the direction reversed. But the same animal nonetheless. However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism. And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by the wayside.. But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits (not in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to raise the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that investment coming back down the other side, when the domains are aligning in their preferential direction, and we'll have incurred no such incidental heating costs. The net sum's still zero, but we haven't lost anything either. Another example would be entropy viscosity (Sv) as investigated by Rutherford in his first paper (c. 1886) - normally an engineering obstacle, since a motor or transformer pulsed faster than the response frequency of its magnetic cores cannot induce any more flux with rising current, hence the only remaining workload beyond an Sv-restricted max speed would again be resistance losses. As such, Sv is usually dismissed as dissipative when it, too, is not - resistance losses are surely dissipative, but incidental to the nature of Sv losses which are intrinsically time-variant. As an example, suppose a magnet is allowed to attract itself across some small distance, to a lump of rough iron. Due to the diversity of the iron's internal domain structures, different regions have varying remanance and coercivities, some domains are pinned harder than others and so its magnetisation curve is non-linear and laggy - holdout domains are still popping into alignment, even some time after the magnets have joined together and stopped moving. So the induced field is increasing, ambiently, of its own accord. If we then separate the magnet from the core, we'll have to input more mechanical effort to prise them apart, than they originally exerted when attrac
[Vo]:Removing rust and paint with a laser
Removing rust and paint with a laser https://www.facebook.com/ScienceNaturePage/videos/799474420184818/?hc_location=ufi Harry
[Vo]:LENR COMMENTS AND INFO
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-28-2016-lenr-comments-and-info.html Great contributions, one from a far continent the other from a less far sub-continent- blessed the Internet for connecting fast with friends everywhere! Things are developing and this will be accelerated soon. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:5 things Einstein got totally wrong
5 things Einstein got totally wrong | | | | || | | | | | 5 things Einstein got totally wrong Relativity is now a centerpiece of modern physics, the reason GPS satellites and mobile internet exist, and why ... | | | | I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common sense . I myself became confused on the issue upon first speculating whether the % of decrease in time present on the near light velocity subject would equal the % of increase of time observed from the opposite dilated time frame. In fact this should not be predicted; instead the quantities should be reciprocals of one another so that a time frame compressed to one half of the stationary one will have his observation show a doubling of respective time comparison on the inverse observation. Then along comes someone making a note that I didn't understand relativity, and also implying that my 666 machine is therefore also invalid because I claim to be converting time into energy by this reciprocal method. To this I can only say;"When I finish with my flux capacitor experimentation the phenomenon of reactive magnification of energy will be undeniable. A flux capacitor is a resonance designed so that the physical dimensions of the inductive and capacitive containers of energy movement can be placed inside one another so that their electric and magnetic fields can be reacted together at right angles, to possibly cause charge movement at the remaining third angle in space by Lorentz forces. The first experiment to show a magnification of energy will be to separate the fields in the flux capacitor system in space as a primary input. Then a secondary system will be added by surrounding the cylindrical electric field component with a high induction coil from a second set of flux capacitor system. Now the primary will loose vibration when the secondary system is added. But here that loss of vibration will be entirely minimized and a much greater total gain of energy will take place. Every oscillating electric field has a counterpart magnetic field in space and in this case scenario the secondary has another capacity that it resonates to that is near identical to the capacity it is magnetically drawing its energy from." But to conclude here it turns out that a paradox exists called "symmetrical time dilation" whereby in this previously made relativistic propositon each observer will see the other ones time frame as running slower then his. So how does this imply that my resonant devices should not work? Only time will tell. Sincerely Harvey D Norris Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
RE: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
@Vibrator, As you imply, some form of negative hysteresis would be the Holy Gail for alternative energy – better than LENR. I am not sure that it is fundamentally contrary to ferromagnetism, so much as requiring a core which has both antiferromagnetic domains or zones which are juxtaposed to ferromagnetic zones. Thus the “automatic flipping” is possible but only in the antiferromagnetic regions. The closest anyone has come to demonstrating this which I know about is the Manelas device, tested by Brian Ahern – slides here: https://ecatsite.wordpress.com/manelas-device/ The best evidence for negative hysteresis in this device is that under load of about 50 watts, the ferrite billet (which severs as the core of an odd transformer with x,y, and z windings) was measured to have dropped in temperature over ambient. The expectation is that like any core, it should have been heated substantially by the rapidly alternating fields (~135 KHz) but instead - it dropped in temperature. To me it seems a violation of CoE on several levels. From: Vibrator ! Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) field is a free energy gradient. The automatic flipping of the remanant flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle. It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present context. It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right up our street.. Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that the conservation laws are time-invariant. But of course this is a perfectly trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial.. The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation to the field's own finite rates of change. In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities (ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational interactions are impossible). However in material or aggregagte systems, effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light" phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with time-dependent net energies... In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be thermodynamically closed. Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output integral. In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the direction reversed. But the same animal nonetheless. However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism. And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by the wayside.. But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits (not in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to raise the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that investment coming back down the other side, when the domains are aligning in their preferential direction, and we'll have incurred no such incidental heating costs. The net sum's still zero, but we haven't lost anything either. Another example would be entropy viscosity (Sv) as investigated by Rutherford in his first paper (c. 1886) - normally a
[Vo]:Re: [usa-tesla] 5 things Einstein got totally wrong
>>>I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common >>>sense . I myself became confused on the issue the problem is that there is a contradiction in the maths as I show at- Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton | | | | | | | | | | | Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its co... | | | | View on www.youtube.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | Einstein was just no good at maths, as Claes explains at-- Did Einstein Not Understand Math? | | | | | | | | | | | Did Einstein Not Understand Math?What can you expect from a mathematical theory developed by someone who did not understand mathematics? | | | | View on claesjohnsonmaths... | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | So even if you want to go by Einstein's relativity, it is just full of misuses of maths. On Monday, 28 March 2016, 17:41, "Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com [usa-tesla]" wrote: 5 things Einstein got totally wrong | | | | || | | | | | 5 things Einstein got totally wrong Relativity is now a centerpiece of modern physics, the reason GPS satellites and mobile internet exist, and why ... | | | | I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common sense . I myself became confused on the issue upon first speculating whether the % of decrease in time present on the near light velocity subject would equal the % of increase of time observed from the opposite dilated time frame. In fact this should not be predicted; instead the quantities should be reciprocals of one another so that a time frame compressed to one half of the stationary one will have his observation show a doubling of respective time comparison on the inverse observation. Then along comes someone making a note that I didn't understand relativity, and also implying that my 666 machine is therefore also invalid because I claim to be converting time into energy by this reciprocal method. To this I can only say;"When I finish with my flux capacitor experimentation the phenomenon of reactive magnification of energy will be undeniable. A flux capacitor is a resonance designed so that the physical dimensions of the inductive and capacitive containers of energy movement can be placed inside one another so that their electric and magnetic fields can be reacted together at right angles, to possibly cause charge movement at the remaining third angle in space by Lorentz forces. The first experiment to show a magnification of energy will be to separate the fields in the flux capacitor system in space as a primary input. Then a secondary system will be added by surrounding the cylindrical electric field component with a high induction coil from a second set of flux capacitor system. Now the primary will loose vibration when the secondary system is added. But here that loss of vibration will be entirely minimized and a much greater total gain of energy will take place. Every oscillating electric field has a counterpart magnetic field in space and in this case scenario the secondary has another capacity that it resonates to that is near identical to the capacity it is magnetically drawing its energy from." But to conclude here it turns out that a paradox exists called "symmetrical time dilation" whereby in this previously made relativistic propositon each observer will see the other ones time frame as running slower then his. So how does this imply that my resonant devices should not work? Only time will tell. Sincerely Harvey D Norris Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ __._,_.___ Posted by: Harvey Norris | Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) | Visit Your Group • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___#yiv7938073197 -- #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp #yiv7938073197hd {color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp #yiv7938073197ads {margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp .yiv7938073197ad {padding:0 0;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp .yiv7938073197ad p {margin:0;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-mkp .yiv7938073197ad a {color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-sponsor #yiv7938073197ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-sponsor #yiv7938073197ygrp-lc #yiv7938073197hd {margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7938073197 #yiv7938073197ygrp-sponsor #yiv7938073197ygrp-lc .yiv7938073197ad {margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7938073197 #y
[Vo]:Re: [usa-tesla] 5 things Einstein got totally wrong
Here's a refutation of the recent gravitation wave measurementsGravity Waves found? 14 Years NOTHING, but "find" it on 100-year Einstein publishing anniversary https://youtu.be/PBpMQ564cWQ Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ On Monday, March 28, 2016 12:41 PM, "Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com [usa-tesla]" wrote: 5 things Einstein got totally wrong | | | | || | | | | | 5 things Einstein got totally wrong Relativity is now a centerpiece of modern physics, the reason GPS satellites and mobile internet exist, and why ... | | | | I have an issue with symmetrical time dilation which seems to defy common sense . I myself became confused on the issue upon first speculating whether the % of decrease in time present on the near light velocity subject would equal the % of increase of time observed from the opposite dilated time frame. In fact this should not be predicted; instead the quantities should be reciprocals of one another so that a time frame compressed to one half of the stationary one will have his observation show a doubling of respective time comparison on the inverse observation. Then along comes someone making a note that I didn't understand relativity, and also implying that my 666 machine is therefore also invalid because I claim to be converting time into energy by this reciprocal method. To this I can only say;"When I finish with my flux capacitor experimentation the phenomenon of reactive magnification of energy will be undeniable. A flux capacitor is a resonance designed so that the physical dimensions of the inductive and capacitive containers of energy movement can be placed inside one another so that their electric and magnetic fields can be reacted together at right angles, to possibly cause charge movement at the remaining third angle in space by Lorentz forces. The first experiment to show a magnification of energy will be to separate the fields in the flux capacitor system in space as a primary input. Then a secondary system will be added by surrounding the cylindrical electric field component with a high induction coil from a second set of flux capacitor system. Now the primary will loose vibration when the secondary system is added. But here that loss of vibration will be entirely minimized and a much greater total gain of energy will take place. Every oscillating electric field has a counterpart magnetic field in space and in this case scenario the secondary has another capacity that it resonates to that is near identical to the capacity it is magnetically drawing its energy from." But to conclude here it turns out that a paradox exists called "symmetrical time dilation" whereby in this previously made relativistic propositon each observer will see the other ones time frame as running slower then his. So how does this imply that my resonant devices should not work? Only time will tell. Sincerely Harvey D Norris Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ __._,_.___ Posted by: Harvey Norris | Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) | Visit Your Group • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205 -- #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp #yiv2426294205hd {color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp #yiv2426294205ads {margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp .yiv2426294205ad {padding:0 0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp .yiv2426294205ad p {margin:0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-mkp .yiv2426294205ad a {color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-sponsor #yiv2426294205ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-sponsor #yiv2426294205ygrp-lc #yiv2426294205hd {margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205ygrp-sponsor #yiv2426294205ygrp-lc .yiv2426294205ad {margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205actions {font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity {background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span:first-child {text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span a {color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2426294205 #yiv2426294205activity span .yiv2426294205underline {text-decorati
[Vo]:Re: Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
And if the magnetic field increases sufficiently, it tends to create a one-dimensional space. The rules for interaction of quantum systems change. All the energy states allowed by a coherent system change drastically. Resonances change along with the changing magnetic field. Electrons and protons may transform to neutrons, and other nuclei change as well given the presence of neutrons. That is what seems to happen in LENR. It suggests the W-L theory of LENR. The one dimensional nature of the coherent system may lend itself to a Storm type linear arrangement of protons as well. This radical image would indicate the anisotropy of space-time as influenced by magnetic fields. The recent Armenian Theory of relativity reported in the current issue of Infinite Energy address strange things that may happen as a result of such anisotropy of space-time—a radical and interesting treatment. Who knows what happens in a locally intense magnetic field? In fact as suggested by P Hitt in his theory of the massification (construction) of protons and neutrons (also reflected recent by W. Stubbs theory recently discussed on Vortex-l) protons may even be assembled from matter and anti matter, positrons and electrons. Such happening would be consistent with changing kinetic energy to potential energy and/or changing EM radiation energy to mass of protons, neutrons and heavier atoms, especially the stable alphas.N. Cook and Rossi have heretofore suggested the importance of alpha stability in the direction LENR takes on the road to more mass and less kinetic energy. Rossi (and Cook) promises a theory of their Ni-H system soon. Bob Cook From: Vibrator ! Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) field is a free energy gradient. The automatic flipping of the remanant flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle. It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present context. It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right up our street.. Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that the conservation laws are time-invariant. But of course this is a perfectly trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial.. The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation to the field's own finite rates of change. In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities (ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational interactions are impossible). However in material or aggregagte systems, effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light" phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with time-dependent net energies... In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be thermodynamically closed. Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output integral. In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the direction reversed. But the same animal nonetheless. However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a stronger applied field,
Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
If the cooling effect is real then could also be indicative of an unfamiliar form of energy storage. Harry On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > @Vibrator, > > > > As you imply, some form of negative hysteresis would be the Holy Gail for > alternative energy – better than LENR. I am not sure that it is > fundamentally contrary to ferromagnetism, so much as requiring a core which > has both antiferromagnetic domains or zones which are juxtaposed to > ferromagnetic zones. Thus the “automatic flipping” is possible but only in > the antiferromagnetic regions. > > > > The closest anyone has come to demonstrating this which I know about is the > Manelas device, tested by Brian Ahern – slides here: > > https://ecatsite.wordpress.com/manelas-device/ > > > > The best evidence for negative hysteresis in this device is that under load > of about 50 watts, the ferrite billet (which severs as the core of an odd > transformer with x,y, and z windings) was measured to have dropped in > temperature over ambient. The expectation is that like any core, it should > have been heated substantially by the rapidly alternating fields (~135 KHz) > but instead - it dropped in temperature. > > > > To me it seems a violation of CoE on several levels. > > > > > > From: Vibrator ! > > > > Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in > systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses > would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically > changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) > field is a free energy gradient. The automatic flipping of the remanant > flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle. > > It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally > contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so > further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present > context. > > It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between > time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right > up our street.. > > Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that > the conservation laws are time-invariant. But of course this is a perfectly > trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... > and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial.. > > The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an > interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) > force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in > question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two > integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation > to the field's own finite rates of change. > > In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be > treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring > energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities > (ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational > interactions are impossible). However in material or aggregagte systems, > effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light" > phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with > time-dependent net energies... > > In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic > system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be > thermodynamically closed. > > Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed > against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output > integral. > > In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the > additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary > force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. > Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of > thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the > direction reversed. But the same animal nonetheless. > > However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their > implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM > systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an > additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a > stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils > and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism. > > And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by > the wayside.. > > But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits (not > in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to raise > the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that investment > coming back down the other side, when the domains are aligni
RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi results). "About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes." That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes which were not mentioned. Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay. The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment to see if it could really be this simple.
Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of > the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent > radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must > accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly > avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely > long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay. This thought occurred to me as well. The decay I considered was a double-electron capture to 64Ni. The difficulty with this and other weak-interaction decay modes is that the number of nucleons does not change. By contrast, what was reported was a decrease in the 64 mass peak by nearly half. This observation is what lead to an earlier comment of mine that there might be a large experimental uncertainty. Or there's something changing the number of nucleons for 64Zn and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally have no conjecture to propose. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
I wrote: This observation [of a change in the number of nucleons] is what lead to an > earlier comment of mine that there might be a large experimental > uncertainty. Or there's something changing the number of nucleons for 64Zn > and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally have no conjecture to propose. > On second thought, there is one possibility I might propose. If there is an alpha emitter present whose decay is being induced, it may be that alpha capture is taking the mass 64 peaks to 66 and 68, etc. Eric
[Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/ Craig
RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
Now that we are learning the 64Zn could be an active isotope for thermal gain in the glow-tube (assuming no measurement errors) it should be noted that this is the most common isotope of zinc but is slightly radioactive with an extremely long half-life. It does not need to be enriched. The fact that 64Zn is slightly radioactive means that dense or fractional hydrogen could play the major role in a thermal anomaly process, since it is present in a metal matrix and positioned to disrupt the electrostatic balance of zinc nuclei by getting closer than with a normal hydride. This would be “accelerated beta decay” with dense hydrogen approaching the 64Zn nucleus close enough to trigger beta decay, which would be far more likely than fusion. Starting Zinc content would be 8% of the Nickel alloy. However, this is not out of the question, since there is a common zinc-nickel electroplating alloy and Parkhomov was known to be working on a low budget, so he may have used recycled nickel containing this alloy. This would be good news if true, since zinc is relatively cheap and beta decay is easily shielded. -- Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi results). "About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes." That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes which were not mentioned. Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay. The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment to see if it could really be this simple.
Re: [Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?
This is an interesting video. He takes a load off of the Orbo, and watches the voltage increase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbKcgyCVzI#t=14.024172 Craig On 03/28/2016 10:33 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/ Craig
[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelI do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel. If there was Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report. In fact as I noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of 01 percent. It was not anyway reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by Higgins. . Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel Now that we are learning the 64Zn could be an active isotope for thermal gain in the glow-tube (assuming no measurement errors) it should be noted that this is the most common isotope of zinc but is slightly radioactive with an extremely long half-life. It does not need to be enriched. The fact that 64Zn is slightly radioactive means that dense or fractional hydrogen could play the major role in a thermal anomaly process, since it is present in a metal matrix and positioned to disrupt the electrostatic balance of zinc nuclei by getting closer than with a normal hydride. This would be “accelerated beta decay” with dense hydrogen approaching the 64Zn nucleus close enough to trigger beta decay, which would be far more likely than fusion. Starting Zinc content would be 8% of the Nickel alloy. However, this is not out of the question, since there is a common zinc-nickel electroplating alloy and Parkhomov was known to be working on a low budget, so he may have used recycled nickel containing this alloy. This would be good news if true, since zinc is relatively cheap and beta decay is easily shielded. -- Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi results). "About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes." That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes which were not mentioned. Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay. The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment to see if it could really be this simple.
[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
I doubt that the mass spec readings would have had such a peak at 64 given the low concentration of Zn reported. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay. This thought occurred to me as well. The decay I considered was a double-electron capture to 64Ni. The difficulty with this and other weak-interaction decay modes is that the number of nucleons does not change. By contrast, what was reported was a decrease in the 64 mass peak by nearly half. This observation is what lead to an earlier comment of mine that there might be a large experimental uncertainty. Or there's something changing the number of nucleons for 64Zn and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally have no conjecture to propose. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
From: Bob Cook I doubt that the mass spec readings would have had such a peak at 64 given the low concentration of Zn reported. That’s because the zinc was labeled as nickel. Both the charts on page 14 and 15 show the enrichment of 64Ni at 4.4% -- but now Parkhomov explains that what they thought was 64Ni was instead 64Zn.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bob Cook wrote: I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel. If there > was Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report. In > fact as I noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of 01 percent. It was not > anyway reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by > Higgins. . > As I attempted to show, even though the total amount of zinc reported in the ICP-MS analysis was small, it was of an order of magnitude to potentially explain part of the mass 64 balance. Eric