Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Brian Ahern]

I am intensely interested in this topic from my experience with Arthur Manelas.


His electrically insulating ferrite billets somehow produced charging of a 
lithium ion battery bank ay 165Volts.


I welcome all discussions as to get this going again.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:36 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlijUSJMmg=488s

Start video at 8:00 to save time.

Rare earth magnets produce spin because these types of magnets produce 
anisometric (unbalanced) magnetic field lines.

An electro magnet does not produce spin because it produces isometric 
(balanced) field lines.

A superfluid like in Holmlid's ultra dense hydrogen will produce unbalanced 
magnetic filed lines because it is a superconductor. The UDH will behave like a 
rare earth magnetic and produce LENR effects.

In the Dennis Cravens golden balls, SmCo5 powder was used to drive the LENR 
reaction. This type of magnet produces magnetic vortex field lines.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM, JonesBeene 
> wrote:

Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the anomaly 
would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated spin as angular 
momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a reproducible and 
“harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground?

There are a number of YT videos that show experimental proof of the existence 
of a magnetic vortex, which is a kind of dynamic spin. The problem is that 
mainstream physics is unaware that there is such a phenomenon. It is not taught 
at University and often considered as being as “fringe” such as an “aether” is 
a fringe notion. In fact there are cross-connections. Part of the problem is 
semantics, in that everyone agrees that an electric field superimposed on a 
magnetic field will dynamically rotate, but usually an electric field requires 
its own input power so there is no free lunch.

The real issue becomes this: can a static magnetic field from a PM generate its 
own inherent electric field (no input) or another kind of field which has EM 
characteristics? Since that will imply that an aether of some kind is present 
it gets to be the fringe of the fringe. Of particular relevance is the 
epo-field defined aether of Hotson.

We can see spontaneous magnetic vortex rotation in many videos (not faked) and 
the direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed. The 
rotation is either left handed or right handed. You can see the salient points 
in the debate about a magnetic spin vortex by watching this video or others 
similar - and then reading the comments. As with most arguments involving 
semantics – both sides are partially correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2IyoBl2ag

At about 2:10 and 3:10 in this video… which is probably the most important of 
the lot wrt the Magnetic Spin Vortex…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM

…wjich is indisputable proof (not that anyone doubts it) that plasma ions in a 
magnetic field will spontaneously rotate at extreme rpm.

The only question then becomes – does the aether exist in another way or 
definition that resembles a plasma in 3-Space? And if so, can any significant 
level of “free energy” be extracted, even if low?

IOW – and stated in reverse - when the magnetic field does not appear to 
self-rotate, is that because there is no aether or because another associated 
force overpower the weak magnetic spin vortex effect so as to inhibit rotation?

This evolves into an explanation which can explain the so-called Faraday 
paradox in a slightly different way, and it relies on an aether similar to 
Hotsons.

RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

Yes to all your questions IMHO

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:05 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex


Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the anomaly 
would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated spin as angular 
momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a reproducible and 
“harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground?

There are a number of YT videos that show experimental proof of the existence 
of a magnetic vortex, which is a kind of dynamic spin. The problem is that 
mainstream physics is unaware that there is such a phenomenon. It is not taught 
at University and often considered as being as “fringe” such as an “aether” is 
a fringe notion. In fact there are cross-connections. Part of the problem is 
semantics, in that everyone agrees that an electric field superimposed on a 
magnetic field will dynamically rotate, but usually an electric field requires 
its own input power so there is no free lunch.

The real issue becomes this: can a static magnetic field from a PM generate its 
own inherent electric field (no input) or another kind of field which has EM 
characteristics? Since that will imply that an aether of some kind is present 
it gets to be the fringe of the fringe. Of particular relevance is the 
epo-field defined aether of Hotson.

We can see spontaneous magnetic vortex rotation in many videos (not faked) and 
the direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed. The 
rotation is either left handed or right handed. You can see the salient points 
in the debate about a magnetic spin vortex by watching this video or others 
similar - and then reading the comments. As with most arguments involving 
semantics – both sides are partially correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2IyoBl2ag

At about 2:10 and 3:10 in this video… which is probably the most important of 
the lot wrt the Magnetic Spin Vortex…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM

…wjich is indisputable proof (not that anyone doubts it) that plasma ions in a 
magnetic field will spontaneously rotate at extreme rpm.

The only question then becomes – does the aether exist in another way or 
definition that resembles a plasma in 3-Space? And if so, can any significant 
level of “free energy” be extracted, even if low?

IOW – and stated in reverse - when the magnetic field does not appear to 
self-rotate, is that because there is no aether or because another associated 
force overpower the weak magnetic spin vortex effect so as to inhibit rotation?

This evolves into an explanation which can explain the so-called Faraday 
paradox in a slightly different way, and it relies on an aether similar to 
Hotsons.

RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Angular momentum is a vector quantity and in QM has kinetic energy associated 
with it.

The middle ground is that thermal energy (orbital energy in QM theory 
associated with nuclear and atomic/molecular coherent systems) when made 
available through a change of potential energy to kinetic energy is useful as  
occurs in LENR phenomena.

Bob Cook.


From: JonesBeene
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:05 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex


Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the anomaly 
would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated spin as angular 
momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a reproducible and 
“harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground?

There are a number of YT videos that show experimental proof of the existence 
of a magnetic vortex, which is a kind of dynamic spin. The problem is that 
mainstream physics is unaware that there is such a phenomenon. It is not taught 
at University and often considered as being as “fringe” such as an “aether” is 
a fringe notion. In fact there are cross-connections. Part of the problem is 
semantics, in that everyone agrees that an electric field superimposed on a 
magnetic field will dynamically rotate, but usually an electric field requires 
its own input power so there is no free lunch.

The real issue becomes this: can a static magnetic field from a PM generate its 
own inherent electric field (no input) or another kind of field which has EM 
characteristics? Since that will imply that an aether of some kind is present 
it gets to be the fringe of the fringe. Of particular relevance is the 
epo-field defined aether of Hotson.

We can see spontaneous magnetic vortex rotation in many videos (not faked) and 
the direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed. The 
rotation is either left handed or right handed. You can see the salient points 
in the debate about a magnetic spin vortex by watching this video or others 
similar - and then reading the comments. As with most arguments involving 
semantics – both sides are partially correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2IyoBl2ag

At about 2:10 and 3:10 in this video… which is probably the most important of 
the lot wrt the Magnetic Spin Vortex…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM

…wjich is indisputable proof (not that anyone doubts it) that plasma ions in a 
magnetic field will spontaneously rotate at extreme rpm.

The only question then becomes – does the aether exist in another way or 
definition that resembles a plasma in 3-Space? And if so, can any significant 
level of “free energy” be extracted, even if low?

IOW – and stated in reverse - when the magnetic field does not appear to 
self-rotate, is that because there is no aether or because another associated 
force overpower the weak magnetic spin vortex effect so as to inhibit rotation?

This evolves into an explanation which can explain the so-called Faraday 
paradox in a slightly different way, and it relies on an aether similar to 
Hotsons.

RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Chris Zell]

Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the anomaly 
would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated spin as angular 
momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a reproducible and 
“harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground

OK, here’s my current puzzlement: is it possible that physics has ignored a 
free energy effect within rotational inertia?

For centuries down to You Tube videos today, there have been people claiming 
that energy can be extracted from a rotating mass, in one guise or another.  At 
present, there are the inertia formulas of Kanarev and the Linevich device.   
Related to this, was the Aspden effect actually a free energy effect – in that 
it appeared that less energy was required to return a rotating mass back to its 
original level of rpm? I understand that a Polish physics group reproduced some 
of what Aspden saw, quite easily. And there was something like a field produced 
in the Wallace inventions and later, Morgan.

Could rotational inertia be ‘stickier’ or more persistent than calculated? And 
if more persistent than thought, could it be used to generate net energy in 
adding and subtracting from a rotating mass? Does this relate to angular 
momentum in particles?  And magnetism as a form of spin itself?

Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Axil Axil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlijUSJMmg=488s

Start video at 8:00 to save time.

Rare earth magnets produce spin because these types of magnets produce
anisometric (unbalanced) magnetic field lines.

An electro magnet does not produce spin because it produces isometric
(balanced) field lines.

A superfluid like in Holmlid's ultra dense hydrogen will produce unbalanced
magnetic filed lines because it is a superconductor. The UDH will behave
like a rare earth magnetic and produce LENR effects.

In the Dennis Cravens golden balls, SmCo5 powder was used to drive the LENR
reaction. This type of magnet produces magnetic vortex field lines.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the
> anomaly would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated
> spin as angular momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a
> reproducible and “harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground?
>
> There are a number of YT videos that show experimental proof of the
> existence of a magnetic vortex, which is a kind of dynamic spin. The
> problem is that mainstream physics is unaware that there is such a
> phenomenon. It is not taught at University and often considered as being as
> “fringe” such as an “aether” is a fringe notion. In fact there are
> cross-connections. Part of the problem is semantics, in that everyone
> agrees that an electric field superimposed on a magnetic field will
> dynamically rotate, but usually an electric field requires its own input
> power so there is no free lunch.
>
> The real issue becomes this: can a static magnetic field from a PM
> generate its own inherent electric field (no input) or another kind of
> field which has EM characteristics? Since that will imply that an aether of
> some kind is present it gets to be the fringe of the fringe. Of particular
> relevance is the epo-field defined aether of Hotson.
>
> We can see spontaneous magnetic vortex rotation in many videos (not faked)
> and the direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed.
> The rotation is either left handed or right handed. You can see the salient
> points in the debate about a magnetic spin vortex by watching this video or
> others similar - and then reading the comments. As with most arguments
> involving semantics – both sides are partially correct.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2IyoBl2ag
>
> At about 2:10 and 3:10 in this video… which is probably the most important
> of the lot wrt the Magnetic Spin Vortex…
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM
>
> …wjich is indisputable proof (not that anyone doubts it) that plasma ions
> in a magnetic field will spontaneously rotate at extreme rpm.
>
> The only question then becomes – does the aether exist in another way or
> definition that resembles a plasma in 3-Space? And if so, can any
> significant level of “free energy” be extracted, even if low?
>
> IOW – and stated in reverse - when the magnetic field does not appear to
> self-rotate, is that because there is no aether or because another
> associated force overpower the weak magnetic spin vortex effect so as to
> inhibit rotation?
>
> This evolves into an explanation which can explain the so-called Faraday
> paradox in a slightly different way, and it relies on an aether similar to
> Hotsons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[JonesBeene]

Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the anomaly 
would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated spin as angular 
momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a reproducible and 
“harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground?
There are a number of YT videos that show experimental proof of the existence 
of a magnetic vortex, which is a kind of dynamic spin. The problem is that 
mainstream physics is unaware that there is such a phenomenon. It is not taught 
at University and often considered as being as “fringe” such as an “aether” is 
a fringe notion. In fact there are cross-connections. Part of the problem is 
semantics, in that everyone agrees that an electric field superimposed on a 
magnetic field will dynamically rotate, but usually an electric field requires 
its own input power so there is no free lunch. 
The real issue becomes this: can a static magnetic field from a PM generate its 
own inherent electric field (no input) or another kind of field which has EM 
characteristics? Since that will imply that an aether of some kind is present 
it gets to be the fringe of the fringe. Of particular relevance is the 
epo-field defined aether of Hotson.
We can see spontaneous magnetic vortex rotation in many videos (not faked) and 
the direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed. The 
rotation is either left handed or right handed. You can see the salient points 
in the debate about a magnetic spin vortex by watching this video or others 
similar - and then reading the comments. As with most arguments involving 
semantics – both sides are partially correct. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2IyoBl2ag
At about 2:10 and 3:10 in this video… which is probably the most important of 
the lot wrt the Magnetic Spin Vortex…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM
…wjich is indisputable proof (not that anyone doubts it) that plasma ions in a 
magnetic field will spontaneously rotate at extreme rpm.
The only question then becomes – does the aether exist in another way or 
definition that resembles a plasma in 3-Space? And if so, can any significant 
level of “free energy” be extracted, even if low?
IOW – and stated in reverse - when the magnetic field does not appear to 
self-rotate, is that because there is no aether or because another associated 
force overpower the weak magnetic spin vortex effect so as to inhibit rotation?
This evolves into an explanation which can explain the so-called Faraday 
paradox in a slightly different way, and it relies on an aether similar to 
Hotsons.