Fantastic demo, again... However i feel the analogy of a ball trapped under a running tap seems to adequately explain the situation - the relative angular velocities are high enough that the angular direction is incidental to the fact that it's simply a fast alternating field (the same principle behind AGW sync in the Whipmag), and the mid-air suspension is similarly the net zero vertical displacements of the rapid equal and opposite vertical forces in homeostasis / dynamic equilibrium with the zero balance of induced vertical momentums.
All else being equal, there should be a predictable vertical offset due to gravity when the magnet is suspended from the opposite direction. Another interesting angle would be to attempt to modulte the harmonic phase of the sync as a function of MoI of the spinning sample - if the rotors are painted black across half their diameter you could use a cheap laser tacho to compare their velocities to the base magnet. You could then modify the suspended rotor by adding a lightweight rigid radial extension of some kind, along which two small heavier masses can be affixed at equal radius 180° opposite to each other. In this way the mass of the rotor remains constant, and its radial distribution can be varied between runs to compare relative sync velocities as a function of varying angular inertia. Alternatively find or fabricate a selection of lightweight washers / rings with equal mass and varying radii that can be attached to the samples.. For any given set of fixed parameters, there is likely more than one stable sync rate, and the incidents of max energy transfer follow the harmonic series (first the unison, then factors of two, then three, etc. of the base rate), with the transmission efficiency decreasing as a function of impulse / angle. This same dynamic applies to multiple planes, encompassing precession and nutation etc.. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:23 PM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of > view where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough > vibrations are sources of all sort of weird things hard to model. For > example rogue waves has been never predicted and still no good model > exists. Even it may be a link between LENR and rogue wave mechanism. > > BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning > experiment at > https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA > > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Vibrator ! > *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15 > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com; > *Cc: * > *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter > wise spinning of magnets > > Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that > the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting > was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT > everything's clear. > > If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was > cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were > only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo > replication. Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that > the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be > affected by the response freqs of the magents. Others (including myself) > tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting > any anomalies. This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that > he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine > energy gain) is IMHO almost nil. > > Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the > acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appe als to tribolectric > effects, and other guff.. it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows > what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be > construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating > display to indulge his pathoskeptic humour. OC sadly became terminally ill > not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had time.. > > The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only > redeeming contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative > cynic i wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth... > > But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and > taking things forward, with a neat tracking solution too! I'll have to > read up on your reasearch when i get time.. > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side >> as gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of >> magnets spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained >> cgw with a composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had >> obtained cgw with two diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported >> on vortex. But on this floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly >> aligned so not simply a gear like mechanism. >> >> >Vibrator ! T ue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700 >> >> >(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, >> at least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is >> an axially polarised levitation then this too is anomolous. Have to >> say, everything's pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields, >> so Earnshaw doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation >> and counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..) >> >> Yes, I think it is cool invention too, but more interested to me the >> applicability of this bound state mechanism in particle physics. See my >> eariler submissions in vortex on this subject. >> > >
