Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H LV]

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 

RE: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Jones Beene]

@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 

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[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 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 

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H Ucar]

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

[Vibrator !]

RKE = half the angular inertia times angular displacement / time, or half
MoI times freq^2.

MoI of a solid mass is simple, so we can easily and accurately derive the
samples' RKE as a function of acceleration / time (many smartphones have
60Hz or higher camera speeds and a laser tacho will thus tell us exactly
how much energy has been imparted by the air jet and base rotor.

Ideally, it would be desirable to engineer a situation in which
acceleration is entirely self contained (ie. without using the air jet).
We can then determine exactly how much work has been done by the base
rotor.

For instance their may be a combination of MoI and base rotor speeds that
is only just stable below a threshold rotor speed, which can then be raised
above that threshold causing a disproportionate acceleration into the new
stable mode.

However if the ultimate goal is to harness energy from the magnetic field,
then we already know how to do this..  the requisite condition is a
time-dependent asymmetric exchange of positive and negative forces /
torques, effected by manipulating field change propogation.rates as an
inverse function of field density (ie. denser = slower).  Specifically, the
rates of inceasing vs decreasing induced flux density must be non-linear,
in order to yeild a non-zero balance of forces.

This is the only viable route, consistent with the conservation laws and
Noether.  Occasionally some may stumble across it inadvertently, while
attributing the result to their own intended, but fallacious principles,
and are thus unable to generalise it, making robust replications and
further development difficult (ie. Yildiz, and likely others).

Bottom line is that there has to be a passive time-dependent force
variation - this is implicit in the very notion of any asymmetry between
closed-loop input and output force / displacement integrals.



On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:22 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apperently an direct interaction causing counterwise rotation which not
> consume energy conflict with COE. This is similar to a case of a
> motorcyle accelerate on a freely rotating circular  track causing the track
> rotate backward due to Newton's 3rd law. Even the motorcyle does not
> accelerates the air resistance is transmitted to the track by the wheels
> and continue to push it back.
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *H Ucar
> *Date: *Thu, Mar 24, 2016 23:23
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter
> wise spinning of magnets
>
>
> Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of
> view where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough
> vibrations are sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For
> example rogue waves has been never predicted and still no good model
> exists. Even it may be a link between LENR and rogue wave mechanism.
>
> BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter
> wise spinning of magnets
>
> Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
> the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
> was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
> everything's clear.
>
> If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was
> cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were
> only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo
> replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that
> the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be
> affected by the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself)
> tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting
> any anomalies.  This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that
> he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine
> energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.
>
> Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the
> acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric
> effects, and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows
> what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be
> construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating
> display to indulge his pathoskeptic hu mour.  OC sadly became terminally
> ill not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had
> time..
>
> The "gearwise"

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

Fantastic demo, again...

However i feel the analogy of a ball trapped under a running tap seems to
adequately explain the situation - the relative angular velocities are high
enough that the angular direction is incidental to the fact that it's
simply a fast alternating field (the same principle behind AGW sync in the
Whipmag), and the mid-air suspension is similarly the net zero vertical
displacements of the rapid equal and opposite vertical forces in
homeostasis / dynamic equilibrium with the zero balance of induced vertical
momentums.

All else being equal, there should be a predictable vertical offset due to
gravity when the magnet is suspended from the opposite direction.

Another interesting angle would be to attempt to modulte the harmonic phase
of the sync as a function of MoI of the spinning sample - if the rotors are
painted black across half their diameter you could use a cheap laser tacho
to compare their velocities to the base magnet.

You could then modify the suspended rotor by adding a lightweight rigid
radial extension of some kind, along which two small heavier masses can be
affixed at equal radius 180° opposite to each other.  In this way the mass
of the rotor remains constant, and its radial distribution can be varied
between runs to compare relative sync velocities as a function of varying
angular inertia.

Alternatively find or fabricate a selection of lightweight washers / rings
with equal mass and varying radii that can be attached to the samples..

For any given set of fixed parameters, there is likely more than one stable
sync rate, and the incidents of max energy transfer follow the harmonic
series (first the unison, then factors of two, then three, etc. of the base
rate), with the transmission efficiency decreasing as a function of impulse
/ angle.

This same dynamic applies to multiple planes, encompassing precession and
nutation etc..

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:23 PM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of
> view where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough
> vibrations are sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For
> example rogue waves has been never predicted and still no good model
> exists. Even it may be a link between LENR and rogue wave mechanism.
>
> BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter
> wise spinning of magnets
>
> Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
> the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
> was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
> everything's clear.
>
> If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was
> cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were
> only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo
> replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that
> the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be
> affected by the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself)
> tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting
> any anomalies.  This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that
> he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine
> energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.
>
> Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the
> acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appe als to tribolectric
> effects, and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows
> what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be
> construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating
> display to indulge his pathoskeptic humour.  OC sadly became terminally ill
> not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had time..
>
> The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only
> redeeming contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative
> cynic i wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...
>
> But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and
> taking things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to
> read up on your reasearch when i get time..
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side
>> as gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case o

RE: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Jones Beene]

In trying to find out what the phenomenon is called – the one that Hamdi refers 
to – the concept of “hysteresis drag” comes up - and the concept of a 
“hysteresis drag cup output device” came up in a patent.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US4885489

 

This would be relevant if the magnetic field from one source (as distinct field 
“lines”) operates as a deformable material which couples to field lines of 
another source in various ways… possibly including “negative hysteresis” and/or 
rate-dependent negative hysteresis.

 

A characteristic of a deformable material such that the energy of deformation 
is greater than the energy of recovery. The rubber compound in a tire exhibits 
positive hysteresis. As the tire rotates under the weight of the vehicle, it 
experiences repeated cycles of deformation and recovery, and it dissipates the 
hysteresis energy loss as heat. Hysteresis is the main cause of energy loss 
associated with rolling resistance and is attributed to the viscoelastic 
characteristics of the rubber.

 

Negative hysteresis, as the name suggests, could violate CoE if it is shown to 
occur but in the demo, the input is apparently much higher than the output.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis

 

At any rate, a test of

 

From: H Ucar 

 

Apperently an direct interaction causing counterwise rotation which not consume 
energy conflict with COE. This is similar to a case of a motorcyle accelerate 
on a freely rotating circular  track causing the track rotate backward due to 
Newton's 3rd law. Even the motorcyle does not accelerates the air resistance is 
transmitted to the track by the wheels and continue to push it back. 



 

Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of view 
where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, although vibrations are 
sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For example rogue waves has 
been never predicted and still no good model exists. Even it may be a link 
between LENR and rogue wave mechanism.

 

BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning experiment at

  https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA

 

 

-- Original message--

From: Vibrator !

 

Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that the 
samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting was 
anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT everything's clear. 

If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was 
cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were only 
two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo 
replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that the 
relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be affected by 
the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself) tested identical 
magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting any anomalies.  This 
isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that he had a passive temporal 
asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.

Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the 
acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric effects, 
and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows what energy is, 
so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be construed one way, as far 
as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating display to indulge his 
pathoskeptic hu mour.  OC sadly became terminally ill not long after, so i hope 
Al did the decent thing while he still had time..
  

The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only redeeming 
contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative cynic i 
wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...

But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and taking 
things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to read up on 
your reasearch when i get time..

 

 

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar <  
jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side as 
gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of magnets 
spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained cgw with a 
composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had obtained cgw with two 
diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported on vortex. But on this 
floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly aligned so not simply a gear 
like mechanism.

 

>Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700

>(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, at 
>least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is an axially 
>polarised levitation then this too is anomolous.  Have to say, everything's 
>pointing to 

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H Ucar]

Apperently an direct interaction causing counterwise rotation which not consume 
energy conflict with COE. This is similar to a case of a motorcyle accelerate 
on a freely rotating circular  track causing the track rotate backward due to 
Newton's 3rd law. Even the motorcyle does not accelerates the air resistance is 
transmitted to the track by the wheels and continue to push it back. 



-- Original message--From: H UcarDate: Thu, Mar 24, 2016 23:23To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state 
of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of view 
where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough vibrations are 
sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For example rogue waves has 
been never predicted and still no good model exists. Even it may be a link 
between LENR and rogue wave mechanism.
BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning experiment 
athttps://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA


-- Original message--From: Vibrator !Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state 
of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that the 
samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting was 
anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT everything's clear. 

If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was 
cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were only 
two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo 
replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that the 
relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be affected by 
the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself) tested identical 
magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting any anomalies.  This 
isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that he had a passive temporal 
asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.

Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the 
acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric effects, 
and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows what energy is, 
so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be construed one way, as far 
as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating display to indulge his 
pathoskeptic humour.  OC sadly became terminally ill not long after, so i hope 
Al did the decent thing while he still had time..
  
The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only redeeming 
contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative cynic i 
wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...

But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and taking 
things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to read up on 
your reasearch when i get time..


On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar  wrote:
This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side as 
gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of magnets 
spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained cgw with a 
composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had obtained cgw with two 
diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported on vortex. But on this 
floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly aligned so not simply a gear 
like mechanism.
>Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700

>(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, at 
>least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is an axially 
>polarised levitation then this too is anomolous.  Have to say, everything's  
>pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields, so Earnshaw doesn't 
>apply, but the combination of levitation and counter-rotation is still cool.. 
>would make for a neat executive toy..)
Yes, I think it is cool invention too, but more interested to me the 
applicability of this bound state mechanism in particle physics. See my eariler 
submissions in vortex on this subject.

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H Ucar]

Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of view 
where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough vibrations are 
sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For example rogue waves has 
been never predicted and still no good model exists. Even it may be a link 
between LENR and rogue wave mechanism.
BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning experiment 
athttps://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA


-- Original message--From: Vibrator !Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state 
of locked counter wise spinning of magnets
Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that the 
samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting was 
anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT everything's clear. 

If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was 
cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were only 
two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo 
replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that the 
relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be affected by 
the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself) tested identical 
magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting any anomalies.  This 
isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that he had a passive temporal 
asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.

Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the 
acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric effects, 
and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows what energy is, 
so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be construed one way, as far 
as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating display to indulge his 
pathoskeptic humour.  OC sadly became terminally ill not long after, so i hope 
Al did the decent thing while he still had time..
  
The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only redeeming 
contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative cynic i 
wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...

But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and taking 
things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to read up on 
your reasearch when i get time..


On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar  wrote:
This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side as 
gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of magnets 
spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained cgw with a 
composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had obtained cgw with two 
diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported on vortex. But on this 
floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly aligned so not simply a gear 
like mechanism.
>Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700

>(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, at 
>least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is an axially 
>polarised levitation then this too is anomolous.  Have to say, everything's  
>pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields, so Earnshaw doesn't 
>apply, but the combination of levitation and counter-rotation is still cool.. 
>would make for a neat executive toy..)
Yes, I think it is cool invention too, but more interested to me the 
applicability of this bound state mechanism in particle physics. See my eariler 
submissions in vortex on this subject.

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
everything's clear.

If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was
cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were
only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo
replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that
the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be
affected by the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself)
tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting
any anomalies.  This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that
he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine
energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.

Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the
acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric
effects, and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows
what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be
construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating
display to indulge his pathoskeptic humour.  OC sadly became terminally ill
not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had time..

The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only
redeeming contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative
cynic i wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...

But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and
taking things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to
read up on your reasearch when i get time..


On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar  wrote:

> This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side as
> gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of
> magnets spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained
> cgw with a composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had
> obtained cgw with two diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported
> on vortex. But on this floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly
> aligned so not simply a gear like mechanism.
>
> >Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700
>
> >(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable,
> at least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is
> an axially polarised levitation then this too is anomolous.  Have to
> say, everything's pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields,
> so Earnshaw doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation
> and counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..)
>
> Yes, I think it is cool invention too, but more interested to me the
> applicability of this bound state mechanism in particle physics. See my
> eariler submissions in vortex on this subject.
>

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H Ucar]

This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side as 
gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of magnets 
spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained cgw with a 
composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had obtained cgw with two 
diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported on vortex. But on this 
floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly aligned so not simply a gear 
like mechanism.
>Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700

>(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, at 
>least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is an axially 
>polarised levitation then this too is anomolous.  Have to say, everything's 
>pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields, so Earnshaw doesn't 
>apply, but the combination of levitation and counter-rotation is still cool.. 
>would make for a neat executive toy..)
Yes, I think it is cool invention too, but more interested to me the 
applicability of this bound state mechanism in particle physics. See my eariler 
submissions in vortex on this subject.

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[H Ucar]

Photos attached. See my comments below.
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMlej_5bSpRg2fZ6KbaTD7RYmQ0cgvU1RXC9BpX

> Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:04:38 -0700

> What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically 
> polarised (poles on opposite faces or same face)?

Both are axially polarized. Base magnet is disk D30x5 and two stacked D10x10.

> Assuming axial magnetisation and that both are common permanent magnets, the 
> floating weight is levitated by reuplsion in apparent defiance of Earnshaw's 
> theorem (since, per Faraday's paradox, the fields themselves are
effectively stationary).

There are both repulsion and attraction.Earnshaw's theo. does not apply because 
the base magnet dipole axis is not aligned to rotation axis, angle is close to 
85° and as you wrote it generate an alternative field. This allows a condition 
for Mathieu equation.
> If OTOH one or both magnets are diamterically (or otherwise off-axially) 
> polarised, then we have an alternating field and Earnshaw doesn't apply.

> If the former case is true, then are the magents a solid alloy type, or 
> sintered (ie. soft ferromagnets and NdFeB are usually sintered, the latter in 
> a chromed jacket)?  Since this may influence the types of EMFs that could be 
> generated.


Magnets are NdFeB grade N35 or lower. EMF or Eddies effects are negligible. 
This setup contains a static third magnet at top in order to support this long 
floating upright.See my YouTube page for detailed description:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3KwdWTgl7fisd3h_tK1YLhFeuzkPATNt
> Earnshaw also specifically applies to ferromagnetic (ie dipolar) interacatons 
> - if the system is complicated by paramagnetic or diamagnetic materials, 
> stable levitation is not precluded.

> More info would be interesting!

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:03 PM, H Ucar > wrote:

> That is while the base magnet attached to motor in a vertical axis
> spinning clockwise, the floating magnet in air keeps spinning counter
> clockwise in phase locked mode 1 cm above the base magnet. In order to
> obtain this mode the floating magnet is initially forced to spin counter
> wise using air jet. Once it gains enough speed it continues to spin by
> itself by the 'negative' torque from the base magnet.
>
> Note that the floating magnet spin axis have small angular oscillation
> locked to base magnet spin too.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, at
least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is an
axially polarised levitation then this too is anomolous.  Have to say,
everything's pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields, so
Earnshaw doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation and
counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..)

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
> polarised (poles on opposite faces or same face)?
>
> Assuming axial magnetisation and that both are common permanent magnets,
> the floating weight is levitated by reuplsion in apparent defiance of
> Earnshaw's theorem (since, per Faraday's paradox, the fields themselves are
> effectively stationary).
>
> If OTOH one or both magnets are diamterically (or otherwise off-axially)
> polarised, then we have an alternating field and Earnshaw doesn't apply.
>
>
> If the former case is true, then are the magents a solid alloy type, or
> sintered (ie. soft ferromagnets and NdFeB are usually sintered, the latter
> in a chromed jacket)?  Since this may influence the types of EMFs that
> could be generated.
>
> Earnshaw also specifically applies to ferromagnetic (ie dipolar)
> interacatons - if the system is complicated by paramagnetic or diamagnetic
> materials, stable levitation is not precluded.
>
> More info would be interesting!
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:03 PM, H Ucar  wrote:
>
>> That is while the base magnet attached to motor in a vertical axis
>> spinning clockwise, the floating magnet in air keeps spinning counter
>> clockwise in phase locked mode 1 cm above the base magnet. In order to
>> obtain this mode the floating magnet is initially forced to spin counter
>> wise using air jet. Once it gains enough speed it continues to spin by
>> itself by the 'negative' torque from the base magnet.
>>
>> Note that the floating magnet spin axis have small angular oscillation
>> locked to base magnet spin too.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
polarised (poles on opposite faces or same face)?

Assuming axial magnetisation and that both are common permanent magnets,
the floating weight is levitated by reuplsion in apparent defiance of
Earnshaw's theorem (since, per Faraday's paradox, the fields themselves are
effectively stationary).

If OTOH one or both magnets are diamterically (or otherwise off-axially)
polarised, then we have an alternating field and Earnshaw doesn't apply.


If the former case is true, then are the magents a solid alloy type, or
sintered (ie. soft ferromagnets and NdFeB are usually sintered, the latter
in a chromed jacket)?  Since this may influence the types of EMFs that
could be generated.

Earnshaw also specifically applies to ferromagnetic (ie dipolar)
interacatons - if the system is complicated by paramagnetic or diamagnetic
materials, stable levitation is not precluded.

More info would be interesting!

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:03 PM, H Ucar  wrote:

> That is while the base magnet attached to motor in a vertical axis
> spinning clockwise, the floating magnet in air keeps spinning counter
> clockwise in phase locked mode 1 cm above the base magnet. In order to
> obtain this mode the floating magnet is initially forced to spin counter
> wise using air jet. Once it gains enough speed it continues to spin by
> itself by the 'negative' torque from the base magnet.
>
> Note that the floating magnet spin axis have small angular oscillation
> locked to base magnet spin too.
>
>
>