Re: [Vo]:Marinov's ball-bearing motor
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: similar to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60okBMeTKoNR=1 And the rotor of a DC motor is already a ball bearing motor! I have several of these I could pull out of the stator magnets. Just hook it to a few hundred amps? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJK-W9FwjMc (( ( ( ( ((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]:Marinov's ball-bearing motor
On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: similar to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60okBMeTKoNR=1 harry Here are some more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PgR1hyXHsfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJK-W9FwjMc The following is a very different design, but may be of interest to some. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTG2U8e6Mdo I think it is fascinating. The video says the magnet is diametrically magnetized, but it doesn't say if it is axially or radially magnetized. It appears to me it could not work if axially magnetized. That would be anomalous if so. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Bedini motors
I don't know why some of these are called Bedini motors. These methods of motor commutation have been around for decades. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTG2U8e6Mdo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byLzUbTjhm0feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsobVuzUSiEfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WkxHr0G6oNR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mWUMXkSI0NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1oFzXOZnE8feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYttVWyVb38feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1bdG6ljz8ANR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lipq96gLtB0feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPB1sSh7yWwfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPB1sSh7yWwfeature=related And here's one with Bedini and Newman in the same title! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OozrZssXSX8feature=related Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
We built and tested the bicycle wheel pulsed motor using four NdFeBo magnets on the wheel and a single stationary coil. I wanted to do this since I had never seen anyone actually measure the torque of a Bedini motor. They always use one coil to pulse the wheel and another for a pickup to charge a second battery. The best COP we were able to obtain was about 0.24. Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I don't know why some of these are called Bedini motors. These methods of motor commutation have been around for decades. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTG2U8e6Mdo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byLzUbTjhm0feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsobVuzUSiEfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WkxHr0G6oNR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mWUMXkSI0NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1oFzXOZnE8feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYttVWyVb38feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1bdG6ljz8ANR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lipq96gLtB0feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPB1sSh7yWwfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPB1sSh7yWwfeature=related And here's one with Bedini and Newman in the same title! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OozrZssXSX8feature=related Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
Terry Blanton wrote: We built and tested the bicycle wheel pulsed motor using four NdFeBo magnets on the wheel and a single stationary coil. I wanted to do this since I had never seen anyone actually measure the torque of a Bedini motor. . . . The best COP we were able to obtain was about 0.24. How did you measure torque -- or mechanical energy I assume. The only way to measure torque I know is to stop the machine, which would affect its performance obviously. I assume this means for 1 W of input it produced 0.24 W of mechanical energy, ignoring losses to friction, resistance electrical heating and so on. If it was an extraordinarily inefficient motor it might conceivably be over-unity anyway, with the rest coming out as waste heat. You could only tell by stuffing it into a calorimeter. That situation would be somewhat similar to the older models of Roger Stringham's ultrasound gadgets. They had a large, complex power supply outside the calorimeter, which supposedly delivered a certain amount of power to the device inside the calorimeter. It would be over unity if actual delivered power is estimated correctly, or not if it isn't. The later models had miniature power supplies that fit into the calorimeter. I do not know if they ever produced convincing excess heat. Back when Gene Mallove was trying to replicate this device I was unimpressed with Stringham's calorimetry. I have not looked closely at it since then. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
Using the DR-2112: http://www.lorenz-messtechnik.de/english/products/torque_rotating_contactless.php we measure it directly. Mechanical energy generated per cycle is simply T Nm x 2 pi radians = Joules output. Electrical energy is measured using a digital scope to generate CSV files for V I vs T at 10k samples per sec. We calculate power using Excel to integrate and multiply. Multiply times the time the pulse is on per cycle to get Joules (Watt-seconds) input. We have a 2 Nm version and a 100 Nm version of the Torque Sensor. Really nice piece of work it is. We have verified these measurements using DeProny brakes and also by lifting weights. Lifting weights is a really kewl way of measuring mechanical energy. We used a bucket with sand so that we could precisely choose the amount of mass. g Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: We built and tested the bicycle wheel pulsed motor using four NdFeBo magnets on the wheel and a single stationary coil. I wanted to do this since I had never seen anyone actually measure the torque of a Bedini motor. . . . The best COP we were able to obtain was about 0.24. How did you measure torque -- or mechanical energy I assume. The only way to measure torque I know is to stop the machine, which would affect its performance obviously. I assume this means for 1 W of input it produced 0.24 W of mechanical energy, ignoring losses to friction, resistance electrical heating and so on. If it was an extraordinarily inefficient motor it might conceivably be over-unity anyway, with the rest coming out as waste heat. You could only tell by stuffing it into a calorimeter. That situation would be somewhat similar to the older models of Roger Stringham's ultrasound gadgets. They had a large, complex power supply outside the calorimeter, which supposedly delivered a certain amount of power to the device inside the calorimeter. It would be over unity if actual delivered power is estimated correctly, or not if it isn't. The later models had miniature power supplies that fit into the calorimeter. I do not know if they ever produced convincing excess heat. Back when Gene Mallove was trying to replicate this device I was unimpressed with Stringham's calorimetry. I have not looked closely at it since then. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: We built and tested the bicycle wheel pulsed motor using four NdFeBo magnets on the wheel and a single stationary coil. I wanted to do this since I had never seen anyone actually measure the torque of a Bedini motor. . . . The best COP we were able to obtain was about 0.24. How did you measure torque -- or mechanical energy I assume. The only way to measure torque I know is to stop the machine, which would affect its performance obviously. Torque can be measured dynamically using strain gauges, electronic scales, etc. However, true Bedini motors have a third coil that is used to recover magnetic field energy and charge a battery as the motor runs. Torque is not the point. One battery runs the motor while another battery is charged, and then the batteries can be exchanged in function. COP can be measured by measuring the amp hours of charge on the charging battery vs amp hours of discharge on the primary battery. This is really nothing new - no matter who's name is attached, because it is just a gazillion ways to build an integrated motor-generator. This is one area that has been and apparently continues to be intensively explored (to put it lightly) by amateurs. There is no reason to expect over unity performance that I have seen. Still, it is neat to see so many people doing hands on technical things. If something cool actually develops there will be an army of amateurs ready to pounce on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
Terry Blanton wrote: Using the DR-2112: http://www.lorenz-messtechnik.de/english/products/torque_rotating_contactless.php we measure it directly. Ah. So this is a miniature dynamometer. I guess it acts as a brake slowing the thing down to some extent while measuring RPMs. The big dynamometers I have seen work that way. I have an indoor bicycle trainer which is supposedly very stable and accurate, calibrated by the factory. It has fluid that produces variable resistance increasing with speed, mimicking the effect of a headwind. A speedometer on the bicycle monitors RPMs and displays speed, distance and watts. I guess that would be a dynamometer of sorts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
It has a strain gauge on the rotor and the distortion of the rotor under load is transmitted via an ingenious system of digitizers and transformers. This is translated into a 5 VDC (max) signal proportional to the torque. You can feed it into one of the digital scope channels and display the dynamic torque in addition to the V I input pulse information. Damned thing has a microprocessor inside. Not cheap, tho. Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Using the DR-2112: http://www.lorenz-messtechnik.de/english/products/torque_rotating_contactless.php we measure it directly. Ah. So this is a miniature dynamometer. I guess it acts as a brake slowing the thing down to some extent while measuring RPMs. The big dynamometers I have seen work that way. I have an indoor bicycle trainer which is supposedly very stable and accurate, calibrated by the factory. It has fluid that produces variable resistance increasing with speed, mimicking the effect of a headwind. A speedometer on the bicycle monitors RPMs and displays speed, distance and watts. I guess that would be a dynamometer of sorts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
Yes, overunity.com has thousands of such people. Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: We built and tested the bicycle wheel pulsed motor using four NdFeBo magnets on the wheel and a single stationary coil. I wanted to do this since I had never seen anyone actually measure the torque of a Bedini motor. . . . The best COP we were able to obtain was about 0.24. How did you measure torque -- or mechanical energy I assume. The only way to measure torque I know is to stop the machine, which would affect its performance obviously. Torque can be measured dynamically using strain gauges, electronic scales, etc. However, true Bedini motors have a third coil that is used to recover magnetic field energy and charge a battery as the motor runs. Torque is not the point. One battery runs the motor while another battery is charged, and then the batteries can be exchanged in function. COP can be measured by measuring the amp hours of charge on the charging battery vs amp hours of discharge on the primary battery. This is really nothing new - no matter who's name is attached, because it is just a gazillion ways to build an integrated motor-generator. This is one area that has been and apparently continues to be intensively explored (to put it lightly) by amateurs. There is no reason to expect over unity performance that I have seen. Still, it is neat to see so many people doing hands on technical things. If something cool actually develops there will be an army of amateurs ready to pounce on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Bedini motors
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Terry Blanton wrote: Yes, overunity.com has thousands of such people. In 1995, if you wanted to trigger a contemporary Amateur Science revolution, you'd have the brilliant idea to perform a simple test: start a website for amateur science, and another one for crackpot physics. Let school kids find both. Injected so early in www exponential growth, could this have any significant impact? And, would the two virii compete for resources (would more people be interested in Scientific American project articles? Or in antigravity machines which never actually work?) After some years you'd see evidence for which tactic was the more effective: FE/Antigravity resembles less a meme than a conflageration which threatens to consume the entire online hobbyist community. Scientific American cancels The Amateur Scientist Oops. I hope all of that was going to happen anyway. I miss SciAm TAS. (( ( ( ( ((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
[Vo]:vortex balls!
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, William Beaty wrote: One thing about self-excited electric motors of all kinds: they work independantly of voltage polarity. WOW! I got it, I got it! In a ball bearing motor, if the path of current is spiral, then it creates a magnetic dipole field on axis with the bearing. If this happens, then a ball bearing race becomes a Faraday Homopolar motor/generator, with no field-magnet needed. And regardless of current polarity, the motor would always produce torque in the same direction (the direction determined by the spiral.) But WHY would the current be spiralling? Maybe the motion of the moving metal will bias the path of the amperes? On the other hand, if a ball bearing has a micro-layer of lubricant and corrosion, then it takes time to squeeze out this material as the bearing rolls forward. Therefore the contact point on the metal is retarded a bit when compared to an unmoving bearing. At higher RPM, the retarded position of the contact point would become greater, so torque would increase with RPM. Also, the metal/metal bond might persist for a bit before rupturing, also retarding the contact point. OK so far, but there could be a problem. If the direction of the slight spiral path is wrong, when compared to the direction of rotation, then the motor-effect will be in the wrong direction. The motor won't spin, instead it will act like a brake. I just worked it out with simple right-hand-rule issues. The force is in the correct direction! It doesn't matter whether it's CW or CCW. As long as the contact point gets retarded by the corrosion layer, it should accelerate the rotor. Col! But that means... a liquid-wetted version would eliminate the squeezed layer of crap, and it might have zero torque. (Or, perhaps the tail of liquid gallium might provide a more asymmetrical path, and increase the torque?) ...or if the whole thing was caused by thermal effects and expanded metal bumps, the liquid-wetted version should stop working. In any case, it should be easy to build a motor by replacing the ball bearings with perfectly symmetrical slip rings, then welding some spiral-shaped bars between this bearing and the outer metal tube. Or even use some strips of sheet copper, insulated with paint, wrapped around the shaft to make a simple coil between the shaft and the copper pipe. EVEN BETTER: if this device is spun faster than its natural speed, it should become a generator and start recharging its battery. (Add some more RPMs to replace the wattage lost in the slip rings.) If the battery is replaced by a short, at some RPM threshold the ball bearings should produce a huge current and a magnetic field. A tiny benchtop Earths-core simulator! PS The moving balls have a vortex-like motion, where the metal is moving much faster in the center than at the outer edge. If the spiral path of amps was mostly caused by this vortex, then the entire ball bearing could be replaced by a pool of liquid mercury, and the motor would still produce the same torque. But if the spiral path is produced by corrosion layers, then a pool of liquid mercury would produce zero torque. That's why they're called AC/DC motors. Self-excited homopolar generators DON'T put out one polarity for CCW and a different polarity for CCW. Instead the polarity depends on initial microscopic currents (much like Kelvin Thunderstorm Device with microscopic voltage.) If Marinov's motor runs in the direction of its initial spin, it could still be a Homopolar Faraday motor of the self-excited type. If spun fast and shorted out, it might even become a Homopolar self-excited generator, and produce an enormous current. (( ( ( ( ((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 (( ( ( ( ((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]:vortex balls!
A few thoughts, btw I have not fully comprehended everything you've said yet but I'll have a crack at it... From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. The magnetic field would be generated by the rotating protons .vs non spiraling electrons. Ok, so it generates a magnetic field dipole and a force would be on the ball bearings but it would be equal and opposite at each end and so cancel. And any force placed on the shaft would be likewise canceled, for instance if we assume that the shaft has a dipole field which seem plausible the current cutting along the north end of the field would generate the opposite force to that created by the south end. I don't yet follow the retarding metal contact point idea so I can't comment. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:18 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, William Beaty wrote: One thing about self-excited electric motors of all kinds: they work independantly of voltage polarity. WOW! I got it, I got it! In a ball bearing motor, if the path of current is spiral, then it creates a magnetic dipole field on axis with the bearing. If this happens, then a ball bearing race becomes a Faraday Homopolar motor/generator, with no field-magnet needed. And regardless of current polarity, the motor would always produce torque in the same direction (the direction determined by the spiral.) But WHY would the current be spiralling? Maybe the motion of the moving metal will bias the path of the amperes? On the other hand, if a ball bearing has a micro-layer of lubricant and corrosion, then it takes time to squeeze out this material as the bearing rolls forward. Therefore the contact point on the metal is retarded a bit when compared to an unmoving bearing. At higher RPM, the retarded position of the contact point would become greater, so torque would increase with RPM. Also, the metal/metal bond might persist for a bit before rupturing, also retarding the contact point. OK so far, but there could be a problem. If the direction of the slight spiral path is wrong, when compared to the direction of rotation, then the motor-effect will be in the wrong direction. The motor won't spin, instead it will act like a brake. I just worked it out with simple right-hand-rule issues. The force is in the correct direction! It doesn't matter whether it's CW or CCW. As long as the contact point gets retarded by the corrosion layer, it should accelerate the rotor. Col! But that means... a liquid-wetted version would eliminate the squeezed layer of crap, and it might have zero torque. (Or, perhaps the tail of liquid gallium might provide a more asymmetrical path, and increase the torque?) ...or if the whole thing was caused by thermal effects and expanded metal bumps, the liquid-wetted version should stop working. In any case, it should be easy to build a motor by replacing the ball bearings with perfectly symmetrical slip rings, then welding some spiral-shaped bars between this bearing and the outer metal tube. Or even use some strips of sheet copper, insulated with paint, wrapped around the shaft to make a simple coil between the shaft and the copper pipe. EVEN BETTER: if this device is spun faster than its natural speed, it should become a generator and start recharging its battery. (Add some more RPMs to replace the wattage lost in the slip rings.) If the battery is replaced by a short, at some RPM threshold the ball bearings should produce a huge current and a magnetic field. A tiny benchtop Earths-core simulator! PS The moving balls have a vortex-like motion, where the metal is moving much faster in the center than at the outer edge. If the spiral path of amps was mostly caused by this vortex, then the entire ball bearing could be replaced by a pool of liquid mercury, and the motor would still produce the same torque. But if the spiral path is produced by corrosion layers, then a pool of liquid mercury would produce zero torque. That's why they're called AC/DC motors. Self-excited homopolar generators DON'T put out one polarity for CCW and a different polarity for CCW. Instead the polarity depends on initial microscopic currents (much like Kelvin Thunderstorm Device with microscopic voltage.) If Marinov's motor runs in the direction of its initial spin, it could still be a Homopolar Faraday motor of the self-excited type. If spun fast and shorted out, it might even become a Homopolar self-excited generator, and produce an enormous current. (( ( ( ( ((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
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
After re-reading I still fail to understand your contact point thought, but is it merely to produce a magnetic field in the shaft? If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? Is the force you are envisioning one that puts a torque on the individual ball bearings? Ah, maybe that's what you mean? On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: A few thoughts, btw I have not fully comprehended everything you've said yet but I'll have a crack at it... From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. The magnetic field would be generated by the rotating protons .vs non spiraling electrons. Ok, so it generates a magnetic field dipole and a force would be on the ball bearings but it would be equal and opposite at each end and so cancel. And any force placed on the shaft would be likewise canceled, for instance if we assume that the shaft has a dipole field which seem plausible the current cutting along the north end of the field would generate the opposite force to that created by the south end. I don't yet follow the retarding metal contact point idea so I can't comment. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:18 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, William Beaty wrote: One thing about self-excited electric motors of all kinds: they work independantly of voltage polarity. WOW! I got it, I got it! In a ball bearing motor, if the path of current is spiral, then it creates a magnetic dipole field on axis with the bearing. If this happens, then a ball bearing race becomes a Faraday Homopolar motor/generator, with no field-magnet needed. And regardless of current polarity, the motor would always produce torque in the same direction (the direction determined by the spiral.) But WHY would the current be spiralling? Maybe the motion of the moving metal will bias the path of the amperes? On the other hand, if a ball bearing has a micro-layer of lubricant and corrosion, then it takes time to squeeze out this material as the bearing rolls forward. Therefore the contact point on the metal is retarded a bit when compared to an unmoving bearing. At higher RPM, the retarded position of the contact point would become greater, so torque would increase with RPM. Also, the metal/metal bond might persist for a bit before rupturing, also retarding the contact point. OK so far, but there could be a problem. If the direction of the slight spiral path is wrong, when compared to the direction of rotation, then the motor-effect will be in the wrong direction. The motor won't spin, instead it will act like a brake. I just worked it out with simple right-hand-rule issues. The force is in the correct direction! It doesn't matter whether it's CW or CCW. As long as the contact point gets retarded by the corrosion layer, it should accelerate the rotor. Col! But that means... a liquid-wetted version would eliminate the squeezed layer of crap, and it might have zero torque. (Or, perhaps the tail of liquid gallium might provide a more asymmetrical path, and increase the torque?) ...or if the whole thing was caused by thermal effects and expanded metal bumps, the liquid-wetted version should stop working. In any case, it should be easy to build a motor by replacing the ball bearings with perfectly symmetrical slip rings, then welding some spiral-shaped bars between this bearing and the outer metal tube. Or even use some strips of sheet copper, insulated with paint, wrapped around the shaft to make a simple coil between the shaft and the copper pipe. EVEN BETTER: if this device is spun faster than its natural speed, it should become a generator and start recharging its battery. (Add some more RPMs to replace the wattage lost in the slip rings.) If the battery is replaced by a short, at some RPM threshold the ball bearings should produce a huge current and a magnetic field. A tiny benchtop Earths-core simulator! PS The moving balls have a vortex-like motion, where the metal is moving much faster in the center than at the outer edge. If the spiral path of amps was mostly caused by this vortex, then the entire ball bearing could be replaced by a pool of liquid mercury, and the motor would still produce the same torque. But if the spiral path is produced by corrosion layers, then a pool of liquid mercury would produce zero torque. That's why they're called AC/DC motors. Self-excited homopolar generators DON'T put out one polarity for CCW and a different polarity for CCW. Instead the polarity depends on initial microscopic currents (much like Kelvin Thunderstorm Device with microscopic voltage.) If Marinov's motor runs in the direction of its initial spin, it could still be a Homopolar Faraday motor of the self-excited type. If spun fast and
Re: [Vo]:Need assistance with math terminology
After the third person addressing offense, now we have first person addressing! This is intolerable, where's the moderator? ;-) Michel 2009/6/25 William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: The problem is people believe that their learnt or innate prejudice exceeds evidence and logic, indeed most people seemingly have been raise to be entirely comfortable deceiving themselves. It's not just people. There's a second half to it. I start striving for clear vision, and I slowly become aware of my own embarassing history of self-important delusions. I knew everybody else was a victim, but I didn't know I was the same! I can't work on shedding my self-deception until I give up looking at others and instead use that time to look at myself. Yeah, people always said that scientists are supposed to strive for humility, but I finally discovered why. Feynman mentions both halves: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
I don't think this can be considered political as no one votes for the UN or WHO and it's a health warning not a discussion or about political view points. Short version, Swine Flu is not especially deadly and compared to the numbers killed by regular flu it isn't a concern especially as large numbers have been infected and recovered and like the normal flu it is only those who have compromised immune systems that have died apparently. Baxter, the company making a vaccine that will seemingly be forced on people: According to the Centers for Disease Control, there will be no exemptions. A certain amount of human wastage is expected. And They were recently caught putting live viruses in vaccines. The ingredients of vaccines and risks associated with many are bad enough but this looks very bad. As the anticipated July release date for Baxter’s A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic. Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
Re: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
How do they plan to enforce delivery of the vaccine? Personally, the police would have to come to my door and restrain me. How about you? Ed On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:20 PM, John Berry wrote: I don't think this can be considered political as no one votes for the UN or WHO and it's a health warning not a discussion or about political view points. Short version, Swine Flu is not especially deadly and compared to the numbers killed by regular flu it isn't a concern especially as large numbers have been infected and recovered and like the normal flu it is only those who have compromised immune systems that have died apparently. Baxter, the company making a vaccine that will seemingly be forced on people: According to the Centers for Disease Control, there will be no exemptions. A certain amount of human wastage is expected. And They were recently caught putting live viruses in vaccines. The ingredients of vaccines and risks associated with many are bad enough but this looks very bad. As the anticipated July release date for Baxter’s A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic. Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
Re: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
I'd have already headed for the hills... On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: How do they plan to enforce delivery of the vaccine? Personally, the police would have to come to my door and restrain me. How about you? Ed On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:20 PM, John Berry wrote: I don't think this can be considered political as no one votes for the UN or WHO and it's a health warning not a discussion or about political view points. Short version, Swine Flu is not especially deadly and compared to the numbers killed by regular flu it isn't a concern especially as large numbers have been infected and recovered and like the normal flu it is only those who have compromised immune systems that have died apparently. Baxter, the company making a vaccine that will seemingly be forced on people: According to the Centers for Disease Control, there will be no exemptions. A certain amount of human wastage is expected. And They were recently caught putting live viruses in vaccines. The ingredients of vaccines and risks associated with many are bad enough but this looks very bad. As the anticipated July release date for Baxter’s A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic. Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
Re: [Vo]:Dateline: 2013
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:27:40 -0400: Hi, [snip] Have you approached CSIRO? From memory I spoke to someone there a couple of years back, but without any luck. Are APRA-E funds limited to US residents? US companies. (I could probably approach them through a partnership with a US company however.) Though I would need to overcome my paranoid instincts to approach the US government. However as a (second) last resort, I would do it. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. Then a simple spiral-shaped coil would not produce a magnetic dipole. Build the thing, see which parts of my explanation *must* be wrong. That's my whole point. Let the experiment be made. (It's what I'm intending to do.) All reasoning is useless if it directly conflicts with a simple experiment. Ok, so it generates a magnetic field dipole and a force would be on the ball bearings but it would be equal and opposite at each end and so cancel. If so, then self-acting Faraday motors wouldn't turn. Some parts of my explanation aren't very open to argument, since Faraday motors do work, and are somewhat understood. What's open to argument is whether experiment will support some parts of my explanation and disprove others. I don't yet follow the retarding metal contact point idea so I can't comment. The current through the ball bearings would normally be perfectly radial. A retarded contact point will bend the radial currents slightly, so they slightly rotate, behave slightly as a coil, and create a dipole field oriented down the motor's spin-axis. (If we add a magnet to produce such a field, such a motor is well known to start spinning.) (( ( ( ( ((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]:vortex balls!
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: After re-reading I still fail to understand your contact point thought, but is it merely to produce a magnetic field in the shaft? A Faraday motor has a radial current in a disk, and a magnet to produce a b-field perpendicular to the disk. This produces a torque between the disk and the sliding contact at the edge (but zero net torque on the permanent magnet.) If instead we remove the magnet and place a coil on the copper disk, and route some current through the coil, the motor still spins. If instead of a coil, we carve spiral slots into the copper disk, which forces the current to have a circular component as well as radial, the motor still spins. DOH! I wrongly called these self-acting Faraday motors, but the real term is self-excited, as with standard DC generators where the generator output is used to excite the generator's own field coil. If we short out a self-excited Faraday motor, then spin the shaft, it starts generating a current. But this only works above a certain RPM, where the output energy is greater than the resistive losses. If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? That would work. A magnetized shaft would turn it into a conventional Faraday motor. I'm looking for an effect which would drive an all-copper ball bearing motor into rotation. Is the force you are envisioning one that puts a torque on the individual ball bearings? Yes, a relative torque between each bearing and the ring enclosing them. (( ( ( ( ((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]:vortex balls!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:14 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. Then a simple spiral-shaped coil would not produce a magnetic dipole. No, you misunderstand what I was saying. In a spiral shaped coil the protons aren't moving in a circle producing a magnetic field, here they are, the opposite to that produced by the electrons hence no field from the electrons to a stationary frame. However IF due to the voltage gradient the electron drift takes a less rotational path than the protons then you will have more rotating protons than electrons and hence you will have a magnetic field. Production of the dipole magnetic field seems likely just not quite the way that seems most obvious.
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:25 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: After re-reading I still fail to understand your contact point thought, but is it merely to produce a magnetic field in the shaft? A Faraday motor has a radial current in a disk, and a magnet to produce a b-field perpendicular to the disk. This produces a torque between the disk and the sliding contact at the edge (but zero net torque on the permanent magnet.) If instead we remove the magnet and place a coil on the copper disk, and route some current through the coil, the motor still spins. If instead of a coil, we carve spiral slots into the copper disk, which forces the current to have a circular component as well as radial, the motor still spins. Sure, makes sense. DOH! I wrongly called these self-acting Faraday motors, but the real term is self-excited, as with standard DC generators where the generator output is used to excite the generator's own field coil. If we short out a self-excited Faraday motor, then spin the shaft, it starts generating a current. But this only works above a certain RPM, where the output energy is greater than the resistive losses. If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? That would work. A magnetized shaft would turn it into a conventional Faraday motor. Ah, but it wouldn't. At least not on the shaft. If you had say a magnetic dipole shaft and tapped one end and the center then you would get a force as the magnetic lines of force exit that half of the shaft then you would get a net rotational force as the current cuts across. However if the current cuts across both poles then it encounters as much magnetic field exiting as entering over it's length resulting in opposite twists at each end. I'm looking for an effect which would drive an all-copper ball bearing motor into rotation. Is the force you are envisioning one that puts a torque on the individual ball bearings? Yes, a relative torque between each bearing and the ring enclosing them. Ok, above I am speaking to the ability of an current in the shaft to generate a force and I find none. I am not yet considering how the ball bearings or rings might react.
RE: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
This sounds like another run-of-the-mill scare-story to me. 1. There is no 'forced-vaccination' program being proposed. 2. The use of live virus in the making of vaccines is routine. Some vaccines, like the Salk polio vaccine, is made with attenuated live virus. These kinds of vaccines tend to be more effective than those containing 'dead' virus material, such as the Sabin polio vaccine. 3. In any case, the UN does not mandate or not mandate health programs. And, and among its many other activities, WHO only makes non-binding health program recommendations to its member states. 4. In any case, legal complaints such as the one 'described' here don't ever get filed with the FBI. They are filed in court for adjudication, or presented to a prosecutor's office for assessment. 5. The FBI doesn't receive communications from Austrian national in Austria. Any communications to the FBI by an Austrian in Austria would come thought Austria's own police or judicial offices. This story sounds like one of the many that circulate through the Net, designed to scare folks and deliberately omitting the kinds of references and citations that would enable people quickly to check its veracity. For example, just who and when did the CDC make such a statement? If the writer were sincere, it would have been a natural and necessary matter to include such references. In some, the whole thing appears to be nonsense, started by someone who doesn't know much about how the real-world works nor much about vaccines, and whose motives are probably to promote scandal and fear, and who assumes that there are people out there who will be gullible enough to pass it on. Lawrence _ From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:20 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder I don't think this can be considered political as no one votes for the UN or WHO and it's a health warning not a discussion or about political view points. Short version, Swine Flu is not especially deadly and compared to the numbers killed by regular flu it isn't a concern especially as large numbers have been infected and recovered and like the normal flu it is only those who have compromised immune systems that have died apparently. Baxter, the company making a vaccine that will seemingly be forced on people: According to the Centers for Disease Control, there will be no exemptions. A certain amount of human wastage is expected. And They were recently caught putting live viruses in vaccines. The ingredients of vaccines and risks associated with many are bad enough but this looks very bad. As the anticipated July release date for Baxter's A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic. Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jun 26, 2009, at 5:25 PM, William Beaty wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? That would work. A magnetized shaft would turn it into a conventional Faraday motor. I think an axially magnetized shaft, by symmetry, would produce an equal but opposite torque at opposite ends of the shaft, resulting in no net torque, assuming radial symmetry exists as in the videos and photos of the existing motors. The current goes radially in opposite directions on each end, but the B field must go axially in one direction at both ends, at a given radius, thus there is no torque produced within the shaft or the bearings from the radial current flow. I think the true driving force is due to hysteresis in the balls, the rotating ring (ball race) and any magnetic material within the shaft that is free to rotate and is near enough to the rotating ring. A circular magnetic field H about the current i through the contact point and vicinity induces a circular M field within the balls and ring, i.e. circular about the radial current i. As the balls and ring rotate the M field remains in position within and relative to the ring, and thus the current then goes radially through an axial M field which is comprised of the trailing edge of the circular M moving into position to intersect the current. The i x M force reinforces the motion of the rotating ring. The above is also true with regards to the M fields within the ball bearings. I have updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to improve the Figures 3 and 4, which illustrate the principles in the above two paragraphs. I also corrected some erroneous text, though the major principles are unchanged. The faster the ring rotates the stronger the latent M fields are, because the less time M must be sustained without an inducing H. The faster the motor goes the more torque it should produce. This is the opposite of the effect that would be obtained if the torque were due to thermal expansion, i.e. a reduced torque with increased motion due to the shortened heating/cooling time. The motor should work with copper bearings or a copper stationary ball race, but requires at minimum *either* a magnetic rotating ball race and/or shaft, or magnetic ball bearings, and should work best with all magnetic components. A magnetic ball race is more important than magnetic bearings because there is a lot more magnetic material involved. The motor should not work with copper balls, copper rotating ball races, and a copper shaft. The motor should not work as effectively with roller bearings because the current is distributed over a wider area and the H field is much weaker, thus the M field is weaker, and the current density is weaker, thus the i x M force is much weaker. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
