Rather than complaining about "negativity" or going on, as Sterling does, about "the energy of the people" at the booth, how about helping out guys like Fletcher who are doing the hard work?
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this > demo. > > That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on > Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what > is > specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been > allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no > trickery. > > Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but > it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored > spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be > compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is > still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for "fuel" in > the > sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when > we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the > apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of > thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in > more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a "spin sink" which > is > torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. > > Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. > Yildiz's > motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the > system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input > - > “order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that > providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and > torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to > torque than to heat. > > Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as > pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as > a > physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets > express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and > mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is > large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable - > spin. > > Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as > in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy > density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system > but > it is not the only determinant of it. > > If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no > demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a > "magmo" is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a > non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a > higher-value for of energy - torque. > > Jones > >
