Or stated another way - is there a crack in CoE via 'hybridization' - such that by essentially adding a loss into a dynamic system of one kind, a gain of a different kind can be seen in a completely different, such that the net effect of both is net gainful?
Ans: Not proven, but do not be too quick with the knee-jerk response. The video below, with some imagination, will demonstrate (visually) to those who possess an open mind, that there are nuances. Most of us agree that anything purely mechanical (using gravity as the purported input) has been a well-settled negative for hundreds of year: no chance for gain (yet 'Bessler wheel', or 'buoyancy' proponents still active, since these systems can be remarkably efficient). Same with EM (there is one systems which has been operating 150+ years -Clarendon pile). But let's go one step beyond to ask: even if a mechanical system, and also an electromagnetic system - are fully conservative as separate systems, but both are 99% efficient - does that fact guarantee that that the interaction of the two will also be fully conservative and even less efficient? (is the loss multiplied?) Maybe so, maybe not - but I think this goes beyond simple logic or mainstream dogmatism, since we can suggest than an action of one sub-system is a loss to itself, but a gain to other. This gets difficult to describe verbally, and can be better illustrated without recourse to this video. Here is a mechanical gadget (similar to Wurth's design) with a rotor and a hand brake - which has surprising spin and torque multiplication characteristics, such that a loss via the brake appears as a gain in the rotor." Yet, so far, it is purely mechanical and net-lossy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0&feature=related Now ... things get interesting with the question: what if the loss was in fact due to an EM load - but having the same mechanical characteristics (torque multiplication) on spin (i.e. the same as the operators actions in the video)? When this device is spinning, there does appear to be a surprising amount of torque gain with relatively little input from the operator. The swing weights are intentionally out of balance to provide this effect, but in a different configuration - if the weights were strong magnets, for instance, and pulse coils were placed appropriately to convert the operation from mechanical into a hybrid pulse motor... quien sabe? In short, a leveraged imbalance or torque multiplication is not gainful in a purely mechanical system, and electric motors can be efficient but not gainful - so must we conclude that that the combination of the two would also be net lossy? In fact, although the video could be faked, but the more one watches the interaction of forces, the easier it becomes to imagine how "less could be more" ... especially if there was a third component. It is the third component which is the teaser here. It is not simply "ZPE" but is related to Ahern's energy localization - and thus to nickel-hydrogen. More on that later but as an appetizer, you might want to dig into the FPU paradox... al dente of course... Fade to black with Orson Welles' (Cheshire cat) smile and "Third Man Theme" zithering-up... Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
