RKE = half the angular inertia times angular displacement / time, or half MoI times freq^2.
MoI of a solid mass is simple, so we can easily and accurately derive the samples' RKE as a function of acceleration / time (many smartphones have 60Hz or higher camera speeds and a laser tacho will thus tell us exactly how much energy has been imparted by the air jet and base rotor. Ideally, it would be desirable to engineer a situation in which acceleration is entirely self contained (ie. without using the air jet). We can then determine exactly how much work has been done by the base rotor. For instance their may be a combination of MoI and base rotor speeds that is only just stable below a threshold rotor speed, which can then be raised above that threshold causing a disproportionate acceleration into the new stable mode. However if the ultimate goal is to harness energy from the magnetic field, then we already know how to do this.. the requisite condition is a time-dependent asymmetric exchange of positive and negative forces / torques, effected by manipulating field change propogation.rates as an inverse function of field density (ie. denser = slower). Specifically, the rates of inceasing vs decreasing induced flux density must be non-linear, in order to yeild a non-zero balance of forces. This is the only viable route, consistent with the conservation laws and Noether. Occasionally some may stumble across it inadvertently, while attributing the result to their own intended, but fallacious principles, and are thus unable to generalise it, making robust replications and further development difficult (ie. Yildiz, and likely others). Bottom line is that there has to be a passive time-dependent force variation - this is implicit in the very notion of any asymmetry between closed-loop input and output force / displacement integrals. On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:22 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apperently an direct interaction causing counterwise rotation which not > consume energy conflict with COE. This is similar to a case of a > motorcyle accelerate on a freely rotating circular track causing the track > rotate backward due to Newton's 3rd law. Even the motorcyle does not > accelerates the air resistance is transmitted to the track by the wheels > and continue to push it back. > > > > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *H Ucar > *Date: *Thu, Mar 24, 2016 23:23 > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com; > *Cc: * > *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter > wise spinning of magnets > > > Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of > view where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough > vibrations are sources of all sort of weird things hard to model. For > example rogue waves has been never predicted and still no good model > exists. Even it may be a link between LENR and rogue wave mechanism. > > BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning > experiment at > https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA > > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Vibrator ! > *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15 > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com; > *Cc: * > *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter > wise spinning of magnets > > Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that > the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting > was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT > everything's clear. > > If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was > cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were > only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo > replication. Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that > the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be > affected by the response freqs of the magents. Others (including myself) > tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting > any anomalies. This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that > he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine > energy gain) is IMHO almost nil. > > Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the > acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric > effects, and other guff.. it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows > what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be > construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating > display to indulge his pathoskeptic hu mour. OC sadly became terminally > ill not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had > time.. > > The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only > redeeming contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative > cynic i wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth... > > But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and > taking things forward, with a neat tracking solution too! I'll have to > read up on your reasearch when i get time.. > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side >> as gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of >> magnets spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained >> cgw with a composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had >> obtained cgw with two diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported >> on vortex. But on this floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly >> aligned so not simply a gear like mechanism. >> >> >Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700 >> >> >(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable, >> at least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is >> an axially polarised levitation then this too is anomolous. Have to >> say, everything's pointing to 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. >> > >
