RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
Jones— Now don’t be snide. IMHO Rossi depends upon vapor to cool his nano Ni reactors so they don’t melt. Its Li vapor to be exact. Its one of the best convection heat transfer agents available. Bob PS: Chris— Add to your list any device producing an unexplained source of heat with no high energy radiation greater than .511 Mev. Angular momentum does not like to be divided up in arbitrary amounts—only units of h/2pie. That restricts transfer to resonant conditions within a coherent system, such as a nano particle of Ni-H. In the unlikely event that 2 or more coherent systems are coupled by a magnetic field or other coupling field, (IMHO an extended coherent system) resonant conditions may allow a nucleus to give up potential energy and/or spin kinetic energy to orbital phonic energy of the coupled system and/or result in a net change in the system’s mechanically available angular momentum. This reaction may fit the definition of LENR. Bob Cook Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 9:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex From: Chris Zell<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> * ….and what do we see? Things such as Bedini, Schauberger (liquid and air), Rotoverters, flywheels with deliberately slipping belts, Linevich, claims by Kanarev and a large proportion of the ‘tin foil hat’ devices reported on Rex Research. The Wallace inventions (‘kinemassic effect’) claimed a direct link with half integer spin materials. Could something have been overlooked here? These devices will always be “tin hat” unless or until… against all odds, they become the “next big thing.” They never seem to die a natural death. BTW - you did not mention my favorite for the tin hat category – the Miller Colson device. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8487484B1/en The rumor mill has this one already in full mass production… … meaning of course that they are probably sharing the same robotic assembly line which is cranking out Rossi’s vaporware.
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
I didn’t know about that one. It looks like a much more complex version of the ‘magnetic battery’ of Bertil Werjefelt. I tried making a copy of his patent but found it to be impractical since repulsion and attraction manifest differently and getting them to balance out is very difficult. Attraction is narrow, repulsion is broad. And magnets set in repulsion repeatedly may wear out. I’d like to try to reproduce the Linevich device. From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex From: Chris Zell<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> * ….and what do we see? Things such as Bedini, Schauberger (liquid and air), Rotoverters, flywheels with deliberately slipping belts, Linevich, claims by Kanarev and a large proportion of the ‘tin foil hat’ devices reported on Rex Research. The Wallace inventions (‘kinemassic effect’) claimed a direct link with half integer spin materials. Could something have been overlooked here? These devices will always be “tin hat” unless or until… against all odds, they become the “next big thing.” They never seem to die a natural death. BTW - you did not mention my favorite for the tin hat category – the Miller Colson device. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8487484B1/en The rumor mill has this one already in full mass production… … meaning of course that they are probably sharing the same robotic assembly line which is cranking out Rossi’s vaporware.
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
From: Chris Zell ➢ ….and what do we see? Things such as Bedini, Schauberger (liquid and air), Rotoverters, flywheels with deliberately slipping belts, Linevich, claims by Kanarev and a large proportion of the ‘tin foil hat’ devices reported on Rex Research. The Wallace inventions (‘kinemassic effect’) claimed a direct link with half integer spin materials. Could something have been overlooked here? These devices will always be “tin hat” unless or until… against all odds, they become the “next big thing.” They never seem to die a natural death. BTW - you did not mention my favorite for the tin hat category – the Miller Colson device. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8487484B1/en The rumor mill has this one already in full mass production… … meaning of course that they are probably sharing the same robotic assembly line which is cranking out Rossi’s vaporware.
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
It suddenly struck me one day that the reputed Aspden effect might be a sign of free energy – in that it might hint that torque could be added and subtracted from a rotating mass so as to result in a net gain. If this is true, then we would expect to see various devices pop up, from time to time, that claim overunity involving an intermittent or off balance use of rotational inertia……….and what do we see? Things such as Bedini, Schauberger (liquid and air), Rotoverters, flywheels with deliberately slipping belts, Linevich, claims by Kanarev and a large proportion of the ‘tin foil hat’ devices reported on Rex Research. The Wallace inventions (‘kinemassic effect’) claimed a direct link with half integer spin materials. Could something have been overlooked here? Sorry if I’m a little off topic ( but maybe not as much as you might think) From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex From: Chris Zell<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> * OK, here’s my current puzzlement: is it possible that physics has ignored a free energy effect within rotational inertia? It is possible that a gainful effect has been overlooked, and that is why it is fun to figure out which of these vids are faked. Rotational anomalies are probably the closest to showing a valid anomaly but most of the videos are fakes. Hopefully the one in thousand will show up soon. There are spatial avenues for augmenting inertia – such as the DCE (dynamical Casimir effect). However, since no one has been able to demonstrate a device that shows true gain … unequivocally, and which has been fully replicated, the Laws of Thermodynamics are still on the books (but they are not true Laws and will fizzle away IF adequate scientific proof arrives, even if the gain is slight).
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
Any particle with integer spin is by definition a boson, so in the case of an EPO it's a massive one. Beyond that, i have nothing..! As regards the potential source in LENR, either there's a corresponding change in entropy in the fuel, hence a local source, or there isn't, so a non-local one (ie. over-unity). Like most folks, i'm expecting a change in mass of the spent fuel. How and why it happens i have little idea, but look forward to finding out.. ..and as for the Planck scale, is there even sufficient spacetime to manifest motion? Doubtless, alternative dimensions become relevant down there, and i am partial to the notion of an active vacuum.. but all angels and pinheads to me i'm afraid.. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It seems Vortex-l has a new voice in Vibrator!. It fits nicely with the > current subject line regarding spin and angular momentum, although, with a > negative energy twist. It reminds me of Weaver coming onto the LENR Forum > to take on the E-Cat World view a couple years back. > > > > Be that what it is, my question is what do you call an EPO with spin 1 and > 0 charge? > > > > Is it a Bose particle or something else? However, if it exists, it may be > a nice conductor of angular momentum. At small distances (f- meters and > smaller) maybe angular momentum acts like charge with a plus and minus sign > and can be divided among particles of a coherent system. Once the > necessary resonant condition happens to the coherent system. the EPO > divides into 2 Fermi particles—a positron and a electron which react with > each other or the entire system to create a new coherent system with lower > potential energy. Some potential energy may transform to increased orbital > momentum energy states or may leave the system as EM energy and angular > momentum of .511 Mev photons. > > > > The resonant conditions I suggest are created within the coherent system > by the change in potential energy of the system caused by the intrusion of > force fields—electric, magnetic or gravitational—in the coherent system. > From the LENR testing it would appear that any one of these force fields > may catalyze the LENR phenomena. > > > > This model may fit well with P. Hatt’s theory regarding creation of mass > from electrons and positrons. He is able to predict magnetic moments and > mass of muons, protons and neutrons quite accurately with respect to > current experimental data. > > > > (As an aside I doubt the B magnetic fields have a curl of 0 at the Plank > scale. Thus, Maxwell’s equations are only an approximation of what > happens in macroscopic systems. The continuous math provided by the > calculus really does not apply at small distances IMHO. I suspect that > relativity theory has the same problem.) > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> > *Sent: *Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:35 AM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex > > > > > > V! sez: > >- I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos. In every >instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the >linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a >magnet at a field etc.. > > > > Perhaps not. There is both a logical explanation for spontaneous rotation > (in *Nature*, no less) - and several vids with no Mr. Hand… > > > > https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7664/full/nature23290.html > > > > “The origin of this anisotropy is purely electronic—the so-called > electronic nematicity. Unusually, the nematic director is not aligned with > the crystal axes, unless a substantial orthorhombic distortion is imposed. > The fact that this anisotropy occurs in a material that exhibits > high-temperature superconductivity may not be a coincidence.” > > >
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
The torque is undoubtedly a thermal / radiative asymmetry between upper (warmer) and lower (cooler) sides of the levitated sphere. However even if it's due to the random, turbulent airflow caused by the temperature gradient and evaporation, it's rectifying to consistent momentum the same way a ping-pong ball trapped under a running tap does, or a collapsing accretion disk, or water draining down a hole etc. etc. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, JonesBeenewrote: > *From: *Chris Zell > > >- OK, here’s my current puzzlement: is it possible that physics has >ignored a free energy effect within rotational inertia? > > It is possible that a gainful effect has been overlooked, and that is why > it is fun to figure out which of these vids are faked. Rotational anomalies > are probably the closest to showing a valid anomaly but most of the videos > are fakes. Hopefully the one in thousand will show up soon. There are > spatial avenues for augmenting inertia – such as the DCE (dynamical Casimir > effect). > > > > However, since no one has been able to demonstrate a device that shows > true gain … unequivocally, and which has been fully replicated, the Laws of > Thermodynamics are still on the books (but they are not true Laws and will > fizzle away IF adequate scientific proof arrives, even if the gain is > slight). > > > > The reason for the original comment on the reality of a magnetic spin > vortex (or unreality) was the approaching possibility of RTSC. For > instance, if the following video was done in a vacuum with a disk of RTSC > then we would have something more relevant to talk about. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q > > > > For now, the bubbles take the place of Mr Hand, which is the usual > culprit. > > > > Since the vid above was never done without bubbles AFIK we have little to > go on for a claim of true gain, other than a reasonable probability that a > disk of RTSC could be fabricated with engineered line-pinning which > permitted and even encouraged anisotropy, as in the Nature piece. Think > helicity and chirality. > > > > Electronic nematicity would need to have the nematic director both aligned > with the crystal axis and deliberately off axis in places giving engrained > helicity. > > > > I will ask Ron Kita to provide a recipe for favored Chiral helicity when > the time is right. First we have to make that disk of RTSC. > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
The motion is powered by the applied current, explained in the synopsis. Ie. input energy is converting to work. The anisotropy is a material, structural or reactive property, not a fundamental field property. Obviously there is chiralty and 'handedness' in nature, but what i was attempting to address was an overly-simplistic interpretation of Tesla's "wheelworks" quip - as if a straightforward mechanical, gearwise coupling between quantum and classical angular momenta might be possible. In every case where something spins up, something else is providing field density or direction fluctuations that are resolving to torque, but while it costs no energy, in principle, to vary a field property, if that variation in turn performs mechanical work, then that workload is commuted back to the energy source - in other words, Mr Hand is burning more burrito when waving a stator ring over a spinning rotor, than he would without the rotor present, and the same is true in any EM or electrical example, the counter-forces,and thus output workload, commuted to the input source via Lenz's law. A rise in momentum and / or energy without a corresponding loading on the input energy supply would of course be a genuinely interesting system.. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:35 PM, JonesBeenewrote: > > > V! sez: > >- I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos. In every >instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the >linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a >magnet at a field etc.. > > > > Perhaps not. There is both a logical explanation for spontaneous rotation > (in *Nature*, no less) - and several vids with no Mr. Hand… > > > > https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7664/full/nature23290.html > > > > “The origin of this anisotropy is purely electronic—the so-called > electronic nematicity. Unusually, the nematic director is not aligned with > the crystal axes, unless a substantial orthorhombic distortion is imposed. > The fact that this anisotropy occurs in a material that exhibits > high-temperature superconductivity may not be a coincidence.” >
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
It seems Vortex-l has a new voice in Vibrator!. It fits nicely with the current subject line regarding spin and angular momentum, although, with a negative energy twist. It reminds me of Weaver coming onto the LENR Forum to take on the E-Cat World view a couple years back. Be that what it is, my question is what do you call an EPO with spin 1 and 0 charge? Is it a Bose particle or something else? However, if it exists, it may be a nice conductor of angular momentum. At small distances (f- meters and smaller) maybe angular momentum acts like charge with a plus and minus sign and can be divided among particles of a coherent system. Once the necessary resonant condition happens to the coherent system. the EPO divides into 2 Fermi particles—a positron and a electron which react with each other or the entire system to create a new coherent system with lower potential energy. Some potential energy may transform to increased orbital momentum energy states or may leave the system as EM energy and angular momentum of .511 Mev photons. The resonant conditions I suggest are created within the coherent system by the change in potential energy of the system caused by the intrusion of force fields—electric, magnetic or gravitational—in the coherent system. From the LENR testing it would appear that any one of these force fields may catalyze the LENR phenomena. This model may fit well with P. Hatt’s theory regarding creation of mass from electrons and positrons. He is able to predict magnetic moments and mass of muons, protons and neutrons quite accurately with respect to current experimental data. (As an aside I doubt the B magnetic fields have a curl of 0 at the Plank scale. Thus, Maxwell’s equations are only an approximation of what happens in macroscopic systems. The continuous math provided by the calculus really does not apply at small distances IMHO. I suspect that relativity theory has the same problem.) Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex V! sez: * I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos. In every instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a magnet at a field etc.. Perhaps not. There is both a logical explanation for spontaneous rotation (in Nature, no less) - and several vids with no Mr. Hand… https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7664/full/nature23290.html “The origin of this anisotropy is purely electronic—the so-called electronic nematicity. Unusually, the nematic director is not aligned with the crystal axes, unless a substantial orthorhombic distortion is imposed. The fact that this anisotropy occurs in a material that exhibits high-temperature superconductivity may not be a coincidence.”
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
From: Chris Zell ➢ OK, here’s my current puzzlement: is it possible that physics has ignored a free energy effect within rotational inertia? It is possible that a gainful effect has been overlooked, and that is why it is fun to figure out which of these vids are faked. Rotational anomalies are probably the closest to showing a valid anomaly but most of the videos are fakes. Hopefully the one in thousand will show up soon. There are spatial avenues for augmenting inertia – such as the DCE (dynamical Casimir effect). However, since no one has been able to demonstrate a device that shows true gain … unequivocally, and which has been fully replicated, the Laws of Thermodynamics are still on the books (but they are not true Laws and will fizzle away IF adequate scientific proof arrives, even if the gain is slight). The reason for the original comment on the reality of a magnetic spin vortex (or unreality) was the approaching possibility of RTSC. For instance, if the following video was done in a vacuum with a disk of RTSC then we would have something more relevant to talk about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q For now, the bubbles take the place of Mr Hand, which is the usual culprit. Since the vid above was never done without bubbles AFIK we have little to go on for a claim of true gain, other than a reasonable probability that a disk of RTSC could be fabricated with engineered line-pinning which permitted and even encouraged anisotropy, as in the Nature piece. Think helicity and chirality. Electronic nematicity would need to have the nematic director both aligned with the crystal axis and deliberately off axis in places giving engrained helicity. I will ask Ron Kita to provide a recipe for favored Chiral helicity when the time is right. First we have to make that disk of RTSC.
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
V! sez: ➢ I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos. In every instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a magnet at a field etc. Perhaps not. There is both a logical explanation for spontaneous rotation (in Nature, no less) - and several vids with no Mr. Hand… https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7664/full/nature23290.html “The origin of this anisotropy is purely electronic—the so-called electronic nematicity. Unusually, the nematic director is not aligned with the crystal axes, unless a substantial orthorhombic distortion is imposed. The fact that this anisotropy occurs in a material that exhibits high-temperature superconductivity may not be a coincidence.”
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
Curl and divergence of B are zero. Maxwell's own metaphor of "vortices" for dipoles is literally shown to be inaccurate by the theory. Likewise, there is no such thing as "field lines" inherent to the field, and their formation is purely a feedback effect from dynamically self-organising dipole chains of elementary dipoles or domains interacting with the field. I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos. In every instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a magnet at a field etc. The torque is being produced in much the same manner as water draining down a plughole, or a ping-pong ball trapped under a running tap etc., and hence the conclusion mooted here is akin to suggesting that water molecules must be vortices. Converting ambient quantum energy into mechanical, thermodynamic energy requires passively time-variant interactions, ie., drop a mass when it's heavy, pick it up when light. Obviously gravity and rest mass are constant, temporally-invariant, and closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy / work, so that particular example's a dead end. But, find an interaction in which the input force*displacement integral is unequal to the output Fd integral, and if d is equal for both then F must be passively time-variant, and thus the closed-loop interaction will gain or lose energy, to the quantum interactions manifesting the force in question (ie. the gauge boson fields, and therein, ambient quantum momentum, AKA 'spin'). This is, by definition, what would be happening in any hypothetically over-unity system. Trying to somehow summon or induce raw mechanical momentum ex nihilo directly from the vacuum is like trying to light an oak tree with a match. Or a rock, even. Nature has already provided perfectly good transmission systems in the form of virtual photon / charged particle interactions, the Higgs, gluons and WZ. The trick is simply coercing them to output more work than input - breaking a CoE or CoM symmetry. Which, again, is just another way of saying "passively time-variant asymmetric interaction" or "free energy motor / generator". An ostensibly-closed system with nonetheless non-constant energy or momentum. But magnetic fields, like gravity fields and charge, are inherently static, having no intrinsic motion, just field / energy density variation as a function of source distance. The only 'action' going on is the exchange of positive or negative-signed units of ambient quantum momentum or 'spin', traded in units of h-bar, between the mediator bosons and moving charges or masses they interact with. Even then, 'static fields' are just that, and inherently conservative. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:55 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Chris-- > > > > I do not consider Thermodynamics addresses the conservation of angular > momentum. > > > > In quantum mechanics per Planck spin is a quantized parameter which > exists in integral multiples of h/2pie (Planck’s constant divided by 2 pie) > in coherent systems. > > > > In primary particles it does not change as long as they remain primary > particles. For example electrons and positrons always have the same > absolute spin and angular momentum, although one is minus and one is plus > , However. When they get close together they change into two photons each > with one quanta of spin and angular momentum (a net 0 angular momentum > given their respective polarizations established by the direction of their > spin vector.) > > > > As far as I know, spin was not a concept established at the time TD was > formulated as a scientific theory. I do not consider it was left out on > purpose. However, TD uses an energy term, enthalpy, which includes > particle kinetic energy as in gases and liquids and phonic energy > associated in QM’s with molecular and nuclear “orbital” spin and angular > momentum, which IMHO both contribute to the heat (enthalpy) of a closed > system. > > > > (Nuclear orbital spin is a debated concept and may not entail “orbits” > of sub-nuclear particles,) The nuclear models that integrate the energy > associated with spin are fuzzy at best IMHO. > > > > The models that take nuclear potential and kinetic energy (total energy) > and transform it into phonic spin energy in crystals and other condensed > matter as enthalpy are just as fuzzy. That’s why LENR is not accepted by > many physicists, since there is no theory they understand and does not > contradict the existing “standard theory”. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > *From: *Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:38 AM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com >
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
Chris-- I do not consider Thermodynamics addresses the conservation of angular momentum. In quantum mechanics per Planck spin is a quantized parameter which exists in integral multiples of h/2pie (Planck’s constant divided by 2 pie) in coherent systems. In primary particles it does not change as long as they remain primary particles. For example electrons and positrons always have the same absolute spin and angular momentum, although one is minus and one is plus , However. When they get close together they change into two photons each with one quanta of spin and angular momentum (a net 0 angular momentum given their respective polarizations established by the direction of their spin vector.) As far as I know, spin was not a concept established at the time TD was formulated as a scientific theory. I do not consider it was left out on purpose. However, TD uses an energy term, enthalpy, which includes particle kinetic energy as in gases and liquids and phonic energy associated in QM’s with molecular and nuclear “orbital” spin and angular momentum, which IMHO both contribute to the heat (enthalpy) of a closed system. (Nuclear orbital spin is a debated concept and may not entail “orbits” of sub-nuclear particles,) The nuclear models that integrate the energy associated with spin are fuzzy at best IMHO. The models that take nuclear potential and kinetic energy (total energy) and transform it into phonic spin energy in crystals and other condensed matter as enthalpy are just as fuzzy. That’s why LENR is not accepted by many physicists, since there is no theory they understand and does not contradict the existing “standard theory”. Bob Cook From: Chris Zell<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex Angular momentum is a vector quantity and in QM has kinetic energy associated with it. Is angular momentum in particles conservative? Does it violate laws of thermodynamics? Is spin left out of conservative formulas because it unbalances the results?
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
Angular momentum is a vector quantity and in QM has kinetic energy associated with it. Is angular momentum in particles conservative? Does it violate laws of thermodynamics? Is spin left out of conservative formulas because it unbalances the results?
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUIlijUSJMmg%26t%3D488s=02%7C01%7CAhern_Brian%40msn.com%7Cc32a3032c94d44651aa608d5158e0999%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636438622138818229=y%2BYlXpxYkzPELtoXGeFgRTB%2BuxHuFLpX7%2BaRUzsg4aU%3D=0> 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 <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> 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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGd2IyoBl2ag=02%7C01%7CAhern_Brian%40msn.com%7Cc32a3032c94d44651aa608d5158e0999%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636438622138818229=k7tUnssU6B0WBm%2BHmwVe40RIv3A1alDeStpHgWeycCQ%3D=0> 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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DafQW8FT02DM=02%7C01%7CAhern_Brian%40msn.com%7Cc32a3032c94d44651aa608d5158e0999%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636438622138818229=QRTIcEU5UV44sR9MfK7gE%2FqYMyoym6c%2BrahUSV0w1u4%3D=0> …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
Jones— Yes to all your questions IMHO Bob Cook From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:05 AM To: Vortex List<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 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
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<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:05 AM To: Vortex List<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 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
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
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, JonesBeenewrote: > 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
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.