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: *email@example.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? > > > > > > > > > > >