Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
Connect a noisy resistor across a red LED and it will emit red photons I don't know if anyone mentioned this before but surely the noisy resistor is only noisy when a current is flowing through it - which takes a voltage - which needs energy input to sustain it - which will probably at least match, and most likely exceed, the energy extractable from the red photons - no free lunch... Nick Palmer
[Vo]: Re: Re: : Quantum Thermodynamics
Howdy Jones, Depend on Jones Beene to keep me up late reading http://www.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/faraday.pdf Paragraph 3.8.3 regarding vortex... hmmm ! Once saw a vid piece on Finns showing their stoic personalities. The vid captured their actions when dancing.. absolutely no emotion expressed.Must be the long winters. Richard
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
John Steck wrote: ANY resistance from 'pan caking' or structural failure would have shown up in a significant increase in collapse time... several orders of magnitude more. That is incorrect. Many buildings have collapsed, on purpose and by accident, and they fall nearly as quickly as with a freefall. And that is not even touching the fact that the resulting SYMMETRICAL damage profile is completely wrong for that hypothesis. Then why do ALL building engineers worldwide agree this is expected? Why are they not outraged at the conclusions made by NIST and others? How is it that these exerts are so foolish? This is like asserting that 200 electrochemists do not recognize recombination when they see it. The ONLY way for ANY structure like that to free fall collapse completely is staged demolition. All supports removed in an instant from top to bottom at regular intervals. Period. That is completely incorrect. I suggest you review the methods employed by Controlled Demolition. They do not remove all supports on all floors. One set of supports is enough. The others are broken instantly as the building collapses, and it happens at freefall speed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
Michel Jullian wrote: In any case you're not the first one to challenge the 2nd law, some famous names have tried before you it seems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics If I was you I would study their work in depth, if only to make sure I don't duplicate it. E.g. have you looked into Feynman's brownian ratchet thought experiment BTW, and if so have you understood why it couldn't work according to him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet Actually yes, I've been in too many 2nd law debates to not know about the ratchet and various Brownian motors. Paul Michel - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics Michel Jullian wrote: --- Ok I remember you mentioned something of the sort now. So the hard bit is to make the material convert its thermal energy contents to electrical energy obviously, the rest follows. Known thermoelectric devices e.g. thermocouples need temperature differentials, what makes you think you don't need one? Something feels wrong about that material of yours acting as a heat source getting cooler while providing electricity without some of the heat going to a cooler place, what makes the heat move in the first place? --- Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from a room full of basketballs bouncing all over the place? Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from air gas molecules bouncing in a container? Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from ferromagnetic atoms that are vibrating at roughly 20 trillion times per second? There's a well-known and well quoted physicists P.W. Bridgman, (1941), There are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it. Even the physicists at Wikipedia display that quote in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics wiki page. The 2nd law of thermodynamics varies from physicist to physicist. Those who adhere to a stricter version believe there's no available entropy in a closed container of air at room temperature at a constant temperature. An electrical resistor generates electrical noise. There is no upper voltage crest to such noise. The longer you wait the higher the probability the observer will detect a higher voltage crest of such noise. Furthermore, there is no *true* voltage level at which an LED suddenly *completely* stops emitting photons. Place a microvolt on an LED and wait long enough and it will emit a photon. Average those photons over time caused by that small voltage and it will be above blackbody radiation level. Connect a noisy resistor across a red LED and it will emit red photons. That may not sound like a lot of energy, and it's not given one such unit (R LED). Create a few hundred trillion of such units and you have a good constant visible free energy light source. Such a unit could be several hundred nanometers is diameter, depending on the LED's wavelength. Any experimental support for your theory? Yes, I have my proof. Initially I had three unique experiments that demonstrated energy extraction from ambient temperature. 1. MCE. 2. R LED. 3. T-ray lens. The first, MCE, was ridiculously difficult to replicate for various reasons ranging from the nanocrystalline and amorphous cores sensitivity to external electromagnetic fields and the sensitive temperature sensing nature of the experiment. Theretofore I no longer demonstrate experiment #1 since experiment #2 #3 is sufficient. I will demonstrate such proof to any scientist who signs papers thereby promising they will dedicate a minimum amount of time per month on such research. Getting people to work on such research in private is one thing given live demonstrations to appeal their skepticism. Getting people to publicly work on such research is another story. The balls already rolling. Truthfully I set up a system so not even I could halt this research at this point, which was the goal. Regards, Paul Lowrance Michel - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics Actually I wouldn't use the term atmosphere to describe the energy source. The output of such a device would be electricity. Lets say an appliance is connected to the device and energy is given the appliance. The device, more specifically the magnetic material, would cool down. The device would cool down and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction. So we have a device that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving energy. Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat. In a nutshell, energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to the device. I've posted and attempted to
Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
Nick Palmer wrote: Connect a noisy resistor across a red LED and it will emit red photons I don't know if anyone mentioned this before but surely the noisy resistor is only noisy when a current is flowing through it - which takes a voltage - which needs energy input to sustain it - which will probably at least match, and most likely exceed, the energy extractable from the red photons - no free lunch... Nick Palmer You should read about different types of noise -- http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm Thermal voltage noise is *independent* on current. Furthermore, there is no upper crest limit to *true* thermal noise. There is free lunch for intelligent beings. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Nick Palmer wrote: I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... If it pancaked down, no matter what the cause, it should have fallen at nearly free-fall speed. By nearly I mean within a second or so, top to bottom. This is simple physics; I worked out part of it in an earlier email to this list -- enough to see what the result looks like. Anyone with time on their hands and an understanding of x = (1/2)at^2 should be able to carry it through to the bottom. The result may not jibe with intuition, so I found it a worthwhile exercise to at least start. The hesitation at each floor before it gave way should have been miniscule, simply because as the mass falls, the next floor it hits will either break away at (or before) the moment of maximum stress, /or/, if it survives the moment of maximum stress, it won't break and the collapse will stop at that floor, because after the initial shock the stress on the supports declines. If the maximum stress doesn't break it, smaller stresses won't either. The moment of maximum stress comes when the shock wave from the impacting mass reaches the supports, which is essentially instantaneous: the shock wave travels through the material of the floor at the speed of sound, and it doesn't have very far to go. So, again, whether the demolition was controlled or uncontrolled, caused by an airplane, thermite, a nuclear bomb, or the Tooth Fairy, the fall speed should have been very much like what we see in the videos. Something else worth pointing out: WE CAN'T SEE THE COLLAPSE in the video. We can see the cloud coming out of the building, which shows where all the windows have blown out. But, the floors were falling /inside/ the building, and we can't see them fall -- we can only see the results of the fall. It is quite conceivable that the falling mass inside the building actually leads the cloud and flying debris we see on the outside of the building by several floors. Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
this is not true. we have footage that shows the collapse of the inside of the building for the first few seconds, and arial footage showing it from the inside. On 2/27/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... If it pancaked down, no matter what the cause, it should have fallen at nearly free-fall speed. By nearly I mean within a second or so, top to bottom. This is simple physics; I worked out part of it in an earlier email to this list -- enough to see what the result looks like. Anyone with time on their hands and an understanding of x = (1/2)at^2 should be able to carry it through to the bottom. The result may not jibe with intuition, so I found it a worthwhile exercise to at least start. The hesitation at each floor before it gave way should have been miniscule, simply because as the mass falls, the next floor it hits will either break away at (or before) the moment of maximum stress, /or/, if it survives the moment of maximum stress, it won't break and the collapse will stop at that floor, because after the initial shock the stress on the supports declines. If the maximum stress doesn't break it, smaller stresses won't either. The moment of maximum stress comes when the shock wave from the impacting mass reaches the supports, which is essentially instantaneous: the shock wave travels through the material of the floor at the speed of sound, and it doesn't have very far to go. So, again, whether the demolition was controlled or uncontrolled, caused by an airplane, thermite, a nuclear bomb, or the Tooth Fairy, the fall speed should have been very much like what we see in the videos. Something else worth pointing out: WE CAN'T SEE THE COLLAPSE in the video. We can see the cloud coming out of the building, which shows where all the windows have blown out. But, the floors were falling /inside/ the building, and we can't see them fall -- we can only see the results of the fall. It is quite conceivable that the falling mass inside the building actually leads the cloud and flying debris we see on the outside of the building by several floors. Nick Palmer -- That which yields isn't always weak.
[Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
It is interesting that many can not seem rid themselves of a nagging suspicion that explosives had to have been strategically placed (in advance) on the specific WTC floors that the passenger jets slammed into. I'm reminded of an old saying: Sex at age 90 is like trying to shoot pool with a rope. -- quotation attributed to George Burns Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
leaking pen wrote: this is not true. we have footage that shows the collapse of the inside of the building for the first few seconds, and arial footage showing it from the inside. Really! I didn't realize that. Is it possible to line up the view from the inside and the images from the outside, and so determine where the falling floors are at each moment in the outside video? I would doubt it, as I doubt that one can see a lot of detail in the aerial view, and I very much doubt the true inside view lasts long enough to be of much help. But it would be very interesting if one could, in that it would help a lot with understanding what we're seeing in the external videos. On 2/27/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... If it pancaked down, no matter what the cause, it should have fallen at nearly free-fall speed. By nearly I mean within a second or so, top to bottom. This is simple physics; I worked out part of it in an earlier email to this list -- enough to see what the result looks like. Anyone with time on their hands and an understanding of x = (1/2)at^2 should be able to carry it through to the bottom. The result may not jibe with intuition, so I found it a worthwhile exercise to at least start. The hesitation at each floor before it gave way should have been miniscule, simply because as the mass falls, the next floor it hits will either break away at (or before) the moment of maximum stress, /or/, if it survives the moment of maximum stress, it won't break and the collapse will stop at that floor, because after the initial shock the stress on the supports declines. If the maximum stress doesn't break it, smaller stresses won't either. The moment of maximum stress comes when the shock wave from the impacting mass reaches the supports, which is essentially instantaneous: the shock wave travels through the material of the floor at the speed of sound, and it doesn't have very far to go. So, again, whether the demolition was controlled or uncontrolled, caused by an airplane, thermite, a nuclear bomb, or the Tooth Fairy, the fall speed should have been very much like what we see in the videos. Something else worth pointing out: WE CAN'T SEE THE COLLAPSE in the video. We can see the cloud coming out of the building, which shows where all the windows have blown out. But, the floors were falling /inside/ the building, and we can't see them fall -- we can only see the results of the fall. It is quite conceivable that the falling mass inside the building actually leads the cloud and flying debris we see on the outside of the building by several floors. Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: E.V. Gray experiment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a specific experiment that the late E.V. Gray performed that is fascinating -- Quote, --- In the workshop, a 6-volt car battery rested on a table. Lead wires ran from the battery to a series of capacitors which are the key to Gray's discovery. The complete system was wired to two electromagnets, each weighing a pound and a quarter. The first demonstration proved that Gray was using a totally different form of electrical current --- a powerful but cold form of the energy. As the test started, Gray said: Now if you tried to charge those two magnets with juice from the battery and make them do what I'm going to make them do, you would drain the battery in 30 minutes and the magnets would get extremely hot. Fritz Lens activated the battery. But what does this mean? Activated it in what sense? I don't understand how the word activated is being used here. A voltmeter indicated 3,000 volts. 3,000 volts across _what_? If the battery had just that moment been connected to the magnets, as the phrase ...activated the battery might seem to imply, then this makes no sense -- where's the 3,000 volts coming from? When you first connect a battery across an electromagnet, assuming you use short hookup wires, you usually see the voltage ramp up to the battery voltage, nothing more (if there's arcing and/or contact bounce when the switch closes it may produce more interesting results, of course). And when you /disconnect/ it you get wild transients that an analog voltmeter (with a physical needle) typically can't display in any useful fashion. So, again, 3,000 volts across _what_? Gray threw a switch and there was a loud popping noise. If he disconnected the battery when it was connected to a high-inductance coil, and didn't have a capacitor wired across the switch, that would make sense. I'd expect some sparks, too, if he used a knife switch. The top magnet flew off with a powerful force. OK, I don't know the arrangement he used, but this sounds like something you can reasonably do with clever placement of the magnets. Richard Hackenberger caught it with his bare hands. So what? How long had the battery been connected for? A few seconds? Then all parts of the system should have been pretty cool. Or was it connected for 30 minutes? or what? And, for that matter, was any current actually going through the part which flew off? What had happened was that gray had used a totally different form of electrical current --- a cold form of energy. I doubt that a lot. The fact that Hackenberger caught the magnet and was not burned was evidence enough of that. No, it's not -- by itself it's not evidence of anything. It's just a very sloppy piece of low-grade calorimetry, with no control, no calibration, and consequently no reason to expect any particular result. --- Does anyone know how to replicate this specific E.V. Gray experiment? Personally I would disagree this is a new form of cold electricity. I firmly believe the energy comes from the magnetic materials ambient temperature. Are there any photos of this experiment? What type of magnetic material were the electromagnets made of? Was is merely capacitors discharging across the electromagnets or was there a circuit? How were the electromagnets situated? Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]: FE Utility Impact
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/renew05/renewable.html Net Metering Statutes – Net metering allows electric utility customers to install grid-connected renewable energy systems on their property and get credit for the amount of excess electricity the systems produce. Thirty-five States and the District of Columbia had State-wide net metering statutes in 2004. EPACT 2005 requires electric utilities, nationwide, to offer their customers net metering service upon request by 2008.
[Vo]: Re: FE Utility Impact
An opportunity for OU device inventors to become rich without even having to reveal their secrets ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:04 AM Subject: [Vo]: FE Utility Impact http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/renew05/renewable.html Net Metering Statutes – Net metering allows electric utility customers to install grid-connected renewable energy systems on their property and get credit for the amount of excess electricity the systems produce. Thirty-five States and the District of Columbia had State-wide net metering statutes in 2004. EPACT 2005 requires electric utilities, nationwide, to offer their customers net metering service upon request by 2008.
Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
Paul wrote:- You should read about different types of noise -- http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to: Vt = SQRT(4kTBR) where: Vt = the rms noise voltage k = Boltzmann's constant T = temperature(Kelvin) B = noise bandwidth R = resistance you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely by the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current flow and this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a sound engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if the resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is dependent upon temperature and the shot noise depends upon the current. I put it to you that when there is no current though the resistor, there is no electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch. Nick Palmer
[Vo]:
I've always gotten a kick out of doing things with found materials, and adapting cheap stuff and simple (i.e., lazy) approaches to do the job of fancier equipment (oscilloscopes aside, obviously -- I never found a plausible substitute for one of those). Unfortunately, a consequence is that I tend to cut corners where it would have been better not to do so. I thought folks on the list might be amused by a few tidbits illustrating what happens when a math guy fiddles with electronics. So, the main point here is that I finally put together an electrophorus (it really _is_ insulated, but the insulator is clear packing tape, which is kind of invisible in the photograph): http://www.physicsinsights.org/images/electrophorus-1.jpg Unfortunately I cut too many corners and it doesn't work as anticipated -- the clear packing tape I substituted for a sheet of polyethylene in the plans refuses to take a charge when rubbed with anything I own, so if I just touch the pan and then lift the top part, nothing happens. However, it still makes a dandy variable capacitor; it's around 300 pF when together (determined from discharge curve through a 100K resistor), presumably falling to zip when the pan is lifted (haven't actually measured it in that configuration). So I tried charging it up to about 1500 volts, disconnecting the power supply (quotes explained below), and /then/ lifting the pan by the handle. Bingo! Got a spark roughly a quarter inch long. Not spectacular, but at least it demonstrates the varying potential effect: separate the plates while keeping the charge constant, and the voltage goes up, just as it's supposed to do. (And then I got distracted with tinsel experiments and didn't pursue the electrophorus -- such is the lot of a dilettant ...) The 1500 volt power supply is worth a word or two, also; it's home brew, stepped up from 18 volts (originally conceived to run on transistor radio batteries, but in practice driven from another DC supply). I originally planned to cobble up something along the lines of a single-coil flyback rig, until I realized the gutsiest transistor I own can only withstand 140 volts; if anything significant flew back from the coil the transistor would fly away. So, I fell back on Plan 2, and tried using a custom-built monofilar-wound transformer with laminated carbon steel core: http://www.physicsinsights.org/images/wire_wrap_coil_1.jpg The green stuff is about 2 dozen turns of hookup wire. The yellow and black spools are exactly what they say on the label, with some leads soldered to the inside ends which stuck out just far enough from a small hole in the middle of each spool to make that possible. The two (partly used) spools alone, wired back to back and placed one on top of the other, without the penknife, are about 0.08 henries (measured via discharge curve across a resistor), and almost exactly 100 ohms resistance. Didn't measure the inductance with the penknife in place, and in fact it only helps the transformer function when partially inserted. Since I was just holding it in that position by hand, that got old fast, so I dispensed with the penknife in the final design, and went with straight air core. The actual HV power supply consisted of a square wave generator running at about 50 kHz feeding the primary, and one rung of a ladder-type voltage multiplier on the secondary using 1kV diodes (1N4007's) and some 100 pF resistors: http://www.physicsinsights.org/images/kv_supply_1.jpg The basic 18v DC supply is also partly visible in the background of that shot, hiding behind the computer monitor; it's also home brew but a far more respectable design than the HV jobbie... The red and black twisted pair visible in the middle ground is my home brew 100x scope probe, and it doesn't work very well but at least it keeps me from accidentally blowing the front end off the scope when looking at 1500 volts. I'd have gone for more multiplier stages (and hence more volts) but I couldn't find any more 1kV capacitors in the basement (and I need 2kV caps, anyway -- each ladder stage can apparently hit about 1.5 kV). I have the makings for a couple Leyden jars here (i.e., empty butter containers and some aluminum foil) but the easy way to make the inside plate uses a liquid electrolyte and I'm hesitant about containers filled with conductive liquids in this very cramped home office. (I'll have more to say about HV supplies in a later post -- I seem to have some over unity diodes here and I've been going nuts trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong...) *** Once I had the HV supply in hand, tinsel experiments seemed called for. A kilovolt is apparently enough to get a piece of tinsel very interested in another electrode. That's fun, of course, but it also brought to mind the question as to whether a dielectric really does block an E field. Could I try that
Re: [Vo]:
Crud, now the subject disease is biting me! This was supposed to be titled: Some Small Sparks My BCC'd copy had the subject intact, so it's clearly something at the Vortex mail server end of things.
Re: [Vo]: E.V. Gray experiment
i recommend hunting down this.. it used to be on googlevideo but KeelyNet convergence people, or peter lindemann, got it removed, which is a right shame. KeelyNet 2001 video: Norman Wootan about The History of The E.V.Gray Motor http://www.pureenergysystems.com/os/EdGrayMotor/PM_PEM_MG/store/index.html The truth is finally revealed. The mystery about Ed Gray's EMA motors is finally over. With two recovered EMA motor prototypes on stage at the KeelyNet Conference in June 2001, Norman Wootan discusses every design feature possible. Every single way the real motors deviate from the designs revealed in Gray's Patent are discussed in detail. Now you can see with your own eyes how it was really done. This video is a must for serious researchers wanting to convert Radiant Energy into mechanical power. A great companion piece to The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity by Dr. Lindemann (book or video) where the EMA power supply is discussed. (2 hrs.) http://dtshop.net/keelynet/index.tam *Inside the EV Gray motors - ** by Norman Wootan...presents an inside look at two of the original EV Gray motors as shown at the KeelyNet Convergence 2001 conference in Dallas, Texas. Norman goes into great detail about the design and construction of the motors, with closeups of each component and an explanation of how they worked. Of particular interest are the coil construction details and how the magnetic repeller field was biased to ensure the motor would spin in a preferred direction at startup. Other details include the firing patterns used by Gray to develop the optimum amount of repulsion, air cooling and other features unique to Gray's research. One of the motors is the original machined Teflon version, the other is 1 of the 5 metal production models built by Gray in Arlington, TX from 1985-1990.* On 27/02/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What had happened was that gray had used a totally different form of electrical current --- a cold form of energy. I doubt that a lot. The fact that Hackenberger caught the magnet and was not burned was evidence enough of that. No, it's not -- by itself it's not evidence of anything. It's just a very sloppy piece of low-grade calorimetry, with no control, no calibration, and consequently no reason to expect any particular result. --- Does anyone know how to replicate this specific E.V. Gray experiment? Personally I would disagree this is a new form of cold electricity. I firmly believe the energy comes from the magnetic materials ambient temperature. Are there any photos of this experiment? What type of magnetic material were the electromagnets made of? Was is merely capacitors discharging across the electromagnets or was there a circuit? How were the electromagnets situated? Regards, Paul Lowrance
