RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

2017-10-20 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
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

2017-10-20 Thread Chris Zell
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

2017-10-20 Thread JonesBeene
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

2017-10-20 Thread Chris Zell
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

2017-10-19 Thread Vibrator !
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

2017-10-19 Thread Vibrator !
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, JonesBeene  wrote:

> *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

2017-10-19 Thread Vibrator !
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, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> 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

2017-10-19 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
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

2017-10-19 Thread JonesBeene
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

2017-10-19 Thread JonesBeene

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

2017-10-18 Thread Vibrator !
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

2017-10-18 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
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

2017-10-18 Thread Chris Zell


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

2017-10-17 Thread Brian Ahern
I am intensely interested in this topic from my experience with Arthur Manelas.


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


I welcome all discussions as to get this going again.



From: Axil Axil <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

2017-10-17 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
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

2017-10-17 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Angular momentum is a vector quantity and in QM has kinetic energy associated 
with it.

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

Bob Cook.


From: JonesBeene<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

2017-10-17 Thread Chris Zell


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

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

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

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





Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

2017-10-17 Thread Axil Axil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlijUSJMmg=488s

Start video at 8:00 to save time.

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

2017-10-17 Thread JonesBeene
Quantum spin (nanometer level and below) is always in motion, and the anomaly 
would be lack of motion - yet at the micro-level self-generated spin as angular 
momentum would imply “perpetual motion” if it were a reproducible and 
“harvestable” phenomenon. Is there a middle ground?
There are a number of YT videos that show experimental proof of the existence 
of a magnetic vortex, which is a kind of dynamic spin. The problem is that 
mainstream physics is unaware that there is such a phenomenon. It is not taught 
at University and often considered as being as “fringe” such as an “aether” is 
a fringe notion. In fact there are cross-connections. Part of the problem is 
semantics, in that everyone agrees that an electric field superimposed on a 
magnetic field will dynamically rotate, but usually an electric field requires 
its own input power so there is no free lunch. 
The real issue becomes this: can a static magnetic field from a PM generate its 
own inherent electric field (no input) or another kind of field which has EM 
characteristics? Since that will imply that an aether of some kind is present 
it gets to be the fringe of the fringe. Of particular relevance is the 
epo-field defined aether of Hotson.
We can see spontaneous magnetic vortex rotation in many videos (not faked) and 
the direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed. The 
rotation is either left handed or right handed. You can see the salient points 
in the debate about a magnetic spin vortex by watching this video or others 
similar - and then reading the comments. As with most arguments involving 
semantics – both sides are partially correct. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2IyoBl2ag
At about 2:10 and 3:10 in this video… which is probably the most important of 
the lot wrt the Magnetic Spin Vortex…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM
…wjich is indisputable proof (not that anyone doubts it) that plasma ions in a 
magnetic field will spontaneously rotate at extreme rpm.
The only question then becomes – does the aether exist in another way or 
definition that resembles a plasma in 3-Space? And if so, can any significant 
level of “free energy” be extracted, even if low?
IOW – and stated in reverse - when the magnetic field does not appear to 
self-rotate, is that because there is no aether or because another associated 
force overpower the weak magnetic spin vortex effect so as to inhibit rotation?
This evolves into an explanation which can explain the so-called Faraday 
paradox in a slightly different way, and it relies on an aether similar to 
Hotsons.