Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks for your reply. Robin (my favorite garden bird :-)).

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the
sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection
of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at
the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish.
The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is
the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever,"
said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

I'll leave such questions to the philosophers.

As far as I'm concerned we are simply building models of material behavior.
I find my model more powerful than the conventional one. The discovery of
the three equations of state for water, for example, should have been made
by physicists or chemists, not by a retired  engineer.

It's not rocket science is it?



On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 21:51, Robin  wrote:

> In reply to  Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100:
> Hi Frank,
> >>
> >>  why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
> >
> >
> >Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep
> ocean.
>
> That's certainly one possibility. However it raises even more questions.
> E.g. what is the ocean? (made of?)
> Or delving even deeper, what is reality?
> [snip]
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

[Vo]:Stirring a Bucket of Water, Thinking about Hysteresis

[Sean Logan]

Good evening,

   Have you ever stirred a bucket of water with a wooden spoon?  If you go
around in a circle, and go fast enough, a funnel will form in the surface
of the water.  I have been able to make funnels so big, I could stick my
hand in without getting wet.  It's like a water tornado.

   I was thinking:  "This is what it must look like in the space around a
wire carrying pulsed DC."

   If your electric current always flows in the same direction, never
reversing direction, then the magnetic field around the wire will always
spin in the same direction.  It's like stirring water only clockwise, until
the vortex forms.  Alternating current would be like stirring the water CW,
then CCW, every other stroke:  the water would just splash around, and you
would never get a funnel.

   If you have an iron ring around your wire, then with each pulse of
current, you're magnetizing the iron in the same direction, over and over.
You don't have to overcome hysteresis -- your hysteresis curve is always in
the upper right-hand quadrant.

   Is there something analogous to hysteresis which is a property of the
aether?  I mean, if you take the iron ring away, and keep sending current
pulses, does something start to happen in the space around the wire?


P.S.  Can you tell me a thing or two about vortices?

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Sean Logan]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:51 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100:
>
> >>  why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
> >Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep
> ocean.
>

 Yes, that's the way I think about it, when I write DIV E = ...

But you gotta wonder:  Where is the water in the source coming from, and
where does the water in the sink go?

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Robin]

In reply to  Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100:
Hi Frank,
>>
>>  why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
>
>
>Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean.

That's certainly one possibility. However it raises even more questions. E.g. 
what is the ocean? (made of?)
Or delving even deeper, what is reality?
[snip]
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

That's rightBut to less "with it " people in some forums it seems a
terrible enigma. :-)

The trouble with the maths is that it kills all vestige of the real world
and prevents one seeing the demo in a different light. For example an
analogue to Cold Fusion via catalysis.

Years ago I got into correspondence with a couple of chemists, Gankin,V,Y.
and Gankin Y.V. on the subject of catalysis. They reckoned that people
didn't really understand it and so it was pretty empirical.
They sent me a hardback copy of their latest book and asked me to review
it. As an Engineer I felt I wasn't up to the task and declined.

Now I see the trolly (chemical) as dropping dawn a pressure gravity
gamma-atmosphere,  increasing speed and coming back up to complete the
reaction. The trolley reaction on the surface proceeds more slowly.

The pressure drop can reach pF6 for water.

pF scale
> pF is a log scale for representing soil matric potential. Thus,
> (17.1)   pF =  log10(-100y)
> where y is the matric potential in metres of water. Notice that y is
> always negative under unsaturated conditions.
> For example, if your measured wilting point is -15 bar (-152.96 m water),
> then the pF value is 4.2.


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


Catalysis is essentially speeding up a reaction by dropping down
field pressure gradients. If things remain on the surface then
the reaction is slow - like the yellow car.

I have shown that for water there is a hierarchy of three pressure
fields (see Prof, Chapin's web site).. In a material like Palladium there
must be dozens. These pressure fields can be manipulated by processing. I
have shown that for clays.

The Effect of Pulverization on the Quality of Clay-cement Influence du
> Degré de Pulvérisation de l’Argile sur la Qualité du Sol-ciment by F. J. G
> r im e r , B.Sc . and N . F. Ross, B.Sc., Road Research Laboratory,
> Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, H arm ondsw orth,
> Middlesex, England


Mizuno processed his palladium and got a runaway reaction which he had to
close down . He "tickled the dragon".

To my mind that was clearly cold fusion. No one appreciates it because they
have the wrong model of material behaviour.  The right model involves
humongous cognitive dissonance for acceptance in the chemical field - let
alone by the hot fusioneers.
As frequently happens in science, advance has to come from the outside.




On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 14:34, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
>
> The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem
>
> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg
>
> Two cars.
>
> Green low road car arrives first.
>
> Real or Fake.
>
> Please explain your choice.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Jones Beene]

This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem 

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
Jones


Frank Grimer wrote:  
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg

Two cars.

Green low road car arrives first.

Real or Fake.

Please explain your choice.





  

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

>
>  why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?


Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean.

Unlike charges have a Bernoulli flow between them.
One is a source - the other is a sink
This leads to their apparent attraction.

In reality they are being repelled towards each other by the surrounding
electric field.

This is a Casimir class of effect.

Like charges create a high pressure region between them  from the inflowing
field. This repels them.

Likewise with the much higher pressure field of magnetism.

If we were able to carry out an accurate field pressure test we would be
able to tell whether the "North" pole was the sink and the "South" pole the
source  -  or the other way around  -   because there must be a pressure
gradient between source and sink.

The housewife's vacuum cleaner does not suck up the dust. The
surrounding air field blows it up.

Attraction (at all scales) is simply a negation of surrounding field
pressure.


On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:28, Robin  wrote:

> In reply to  Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 2 Jul 2022 01:41:55 +0100:
> Hi,
> >> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net
> effect is
> >> zero..
> >
> >Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless
> >accelerations however.
> >Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly:
> >
> > • gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed
> >from the zero momentum frame
> >
> > • from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration
> >(Galileo's principle)
> >
> > • a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a
> >massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1
> >G like anything else
>
> This statement contains a couple of unproven assumptions.
> 1) You don't know that's is reactionless.
> 2) You don't know that it's being accelerated upward as well as being
> pulled down by gravity. It may actually be
> canceling the effect of gravity on the craft. After all, we don't really
> know anything about the actual nature of
> gravity, or any of the forces for that matter.
> We have a few constants and some nice formulae, but no real understanding
> of the actual nature of forces. E.g. why do
> like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
> [snip]
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

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

Two cars.

Green low road car arrives first.

Real or Fake.

Please explain your choice.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:55, Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>