Re: [Vo]:Beiting paper at ICCF-21
Richard Garwin of the Jasons was brought in to evaluate the experiment. He said there is a problem because it uses K-type thermocouples which are susceptible to errors from exposure to hydrogen. Beiting pointed out three problems with this hypothesis: 1. The thermocouples were shielded. 2. The damage only happens at ~600°C and these cells were run at 300°C. 3. The damage causes the thermocouples to show a lower temperature. If would reduce the estimate of excess heat, not increase it. Garwin is grasping at straws, trying to find an excuse to dismiss the results. He said the first thing that popped into his head, which could not have happened and would have had the opposite effect if it could. Soon after cold fusion began, Garwin was called in to evaluate SRI. The gist of his report was: "I could not find an error but I am sure something must be wrong."
Re: [Vo]:Beiting paper at ICCF-21
Glad and hopeful... rmfor...@gmail.com blog rmforall.blogspot.com On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 5:01 PM Jed Rothwell wrote: > This was marvelous: > > E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,” > Aerospace Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo > CA, USA, May 15, 2017. > > > http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Beiting-Edward-1.pdf > > In my opinion, this is one of the best reports in the history of cold > fusion. Great calorimetry -- IRREFUTABLE results. I now fully believe the > ZrO2NiPd material works. Kudos to Brian Ahern. > > The response to this from Richard Garwin was hilarious. I shall describe > it later, when I get a chance. > > I can't wait to read the full report listed at the end of the abstract. I > hope I can upload the full report to LENR-CANR.org soon. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Beiting paper at ICCF-21
Overall, I would say the people selected to give oral presentations have upped their game. The quality is better than most previous conferences. Several other experimental papers impressed me. I will list them below. Here are all the abstracts: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp71necll4mfv2w/AABLXuUL0v3NrkY7BPYPKDA_a?dl=0 Letts & Cravens Mizuno (if I do say so myself) Takahashi Hioki - These two describe different aspects of the same project. Unfortunately, the funding for it ended last year Tanzella Staker Beiting Biberian Olafsson Zeiner-Gunderson - Both about Holmlid. Not exactly cold fusion, but good. That's just the first two days. Impressive. Note that I cannot judge theory papers and I have nothing to say about them.
[Vo]:Beiting paper at ICCF-21
This was marvelous: E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,” Aerospace Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo CA, USA, May 15, 2017. http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Beiting-Edward-1.pdf In my opinion, this is one of the best reports in the history of cold fusion. Great calorimetry -- IRREFUTABLE results. I now fully believe the ZrO2NiPd material works. Kudos to Brian Ahern. The response to this from Richard Garwin was hilarious. I shall describe it later, when I get a chance. I can't wait to read the full report listed at the end of the abstract. I hope I can upload the full report to LENR-CANR.org soon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Here is Veritasium doing his own version Eric Laithwaite's demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo There might be something special about rotational motion but I think conventional physics explains this particular situtation quite well. In my own research I noticed something unsual from a purely mathemtical standpoint concerning the geometric relationship between a ring and a horizontal surface. If the ring lays flat on the surface, then as long as the motions involved are relatively slow, the relative motion between any point of contact between the ring and the surface is the same whether or not the ring is sliding uniformly over the surface (system A) or if the surface is rotating underneath the ring (system B). See this diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Abi_9FUReRGNKL65zggAKk4TN812cO3Y/view?usp=sharing If my mathematical analysis is incorrect it would be nice to know. harry On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Chris Zell wrote: > So give us good pictures already. Enough with the verbiage. > > > > I increasingly believe in the negative power of stigmergy rather than > conspiracy. People just blindly follow each other like termites and build > ideas as truth. “Everybody knows” that centrifugal force is just a > pseudo- force, right? No reason to examine it…… > > > > While Eric Laithwaite was criticized widely, I was impressed that a heavy > rotor could be lifted and swung around with little effort, pseudo-force or > not. >
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
As a Gedanken experiment, is it possible that inertia could be have a free energy aspect to it, if it is slightly more persistent than thought? Say you have a rotor that absorbs energy when accelerated and sheds it during deacceleration ( as loaded then) – if you quickly switch between these states, is it possible that it persists in rotating during deacceleration to a tiny degree in excess of what conservation would suggest? Hence, overunity/free energy during brief moments……
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
The concept of inertia was new physics when it was first proposed. It eventually supplanted the concept of impetus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus Harry On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: > Sorry if i've been unclear - i've already done it. It's done. No New > physics. No magic. No possibility of error. Definitive, conclusive, > indisputable, unambiguous and unequivocal proof positive, it's in the can, > it's a wrap, a done-deal, a fait accompli, an actual physical gain, not an > 'implied' one; 37.8 Joules of gravity*mass*height transforms seamlessly > into 72.1 Joules of mechanical energy in one second, leaving 34.3 Joules > free and clear after the weight is re-lifted and the mechanism fully reset > to its initial conditions, thus an efficiency of 90% OU, or 190% of unity, > together with a corresponding 1.4 meter drop in the zero momentum frame. > Buy a free-energy machine, get a free warp drive. It's here. Now. Done > and dusted. Ready for deployment. Trivially easy to replicate, and could > probably be validated on the back of an envelope. > > There's nothing theoretical or speculative about it, both CoM and CoE > remain inviolable - the results can only be interpreted as evidence of a > quantum-classical system rather than creation ex nihilo (evidence of such > being epistemologically impossible), and arguably we all know classical > systems are inherently quantum-classical anyway; it is but a question of > thresholds. > > It's just a perfectly normal free-energy warp drive using bog-standard > mechanics - force, mass and motion - entirely dependent upon the > immutability of CoM and CoE at every step in the process. > > Like i say, there's temporal symmetry to net changes in momentum, and a > spatial one. Usually they're hard-coupled due to mass constancy, however > this is an epiphenomenal symmetry, not a truly fundamental one, and it can > be broken, and i HAVE broken it, and this spatiotemporal momentum asymmetry > results in a gain in mechanical energy explicitly caused by the > bog-standard V^2 multiplier in 1/2mV^2 and 1/2Lw^2 - the normal mechanical > energy terms. > > Starting to think i should maybe bind that explanation to a macro key... > > > The only new aspect is that traditionally, the 'net thermodynamic energy' > of the universe only takes into account all possible displacements against > all fundamental force fields (the net work done from bang to bust) - > whereas the vacuum energy.. well, just Google "vacuum catastrophe". > > The interaction i'm demonstrating pulls momentum from whatever the applied > force field (so gravity, EM, inertial forces (ie. 'G-force'), springs or > whatever), and mechanical energy (KE or PE or some combination of each) > from the Higgs field - not by my or Bessler's design, but the universe's.. > so if there's any 'mistake', you're taking it up with the wrong person.. > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:20 PM, H LV wrote: > >> Perhaps it is possible to devise a mathematical/conceptual framework for >> mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics would exist as a special case but >> the alternative framework would allow for the construction of a perpetual >> motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century >> and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics >> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or >> quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new >> concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Vibrator ! >> wrote: >> >>> ..right, just spammed it to Tajmar. Who could possibly be more >>> qualified or interested? Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's >>> already aware of the Bessler case.. >>> >>> Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're apparently >>> far too sensible.. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator ! >>> wrote: >>> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data. It's been just over a week since achieving certainty. None of the uni's are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason. Perhaps you could help refine my template? "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two masses around, type stuff. Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots, and the nice pastel colour-scheme. Do i win £5?" The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp. College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one... So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not deployed in a sensible manner. >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Hi John No, i don't have physical device, or even a physical experiment - not a great start, one would quite reasonably presume! So, what do i have, and why am i so excited about it? It's just a poxy simulation. Nothing more. Just an interaction between some masses - some forces are applied, some accelerations happen, PE converts to KE, and also into more PE. The KE is equal to the GPE value as a function of time spent gravitating (1 second). It is unequal to the height gravitated across - substantially less than its GMH value. However the PE component, output by the interaction, is equal to twice the KE. So, from an initial GMH value of 37 J, we get a net output of 24 J in KE... but then we ALSO get another 48 J in PE! So 37 J of GPE has spontaneously transformed, in a single second, into 72 J of mechanical energy - 24 J KE plus 48 J PE! When the weight is thus re-lifted, repaying that 37 J GMH, we're left with 35 J excess energy that has been loaded into a spring. This extra mechanical energy was sourced from an effective N3 violation, and harnessing it (loading it into the spring) has caused a 1.4 meter drop in the zero-momentum frame between Earth and the weight. Hence, buy a free energy machine, get a free warp drive, and then go rant about it on teh interwebz. I mean, seek professional help, one way or the other.. I assure you there can be no room for doubt or alternative interpretation as to how and why this excess work has been performed - it is a genuine 'free' negative work integral, a product of standard force and displacement, albeit from an N3-defying acceleration. All component variables and parameters of each term are displayed independently - anything that CAN be broken down into constituent terms, has been - and so can be easily cross-referenced with one another for internal continuity, as well as checked by manual calcs for physical consistency. And so this is why i'm so certain, on the back of such apparently dubious evidence. A sim can sometimes throw up anomolous gains from rounding errors, or collision errors, or just bad or incorrect use of formulas. But here, there are no collisions, rounding errors are within micro ranges (four or five orders below gains and entirely negligible), and like i say, all formulas are cross-checked internally and manually. I've focused upon 'exploding the view' of the interaction itself, to make the gain principle as clear to follow in terms of cause and effect, as possible, rather than further complicating things by designing it into a 'PMM' - which at this stage would probably only hinder attempts at independent validation; and besides would seem a rather trite and irresponsible priority for such an important discovery - the experts are going to be able to do far more with this than i can, provided they can actually follow the gain principle in the first place. So it's 'just' sims.. but yet the single most compelling evidence for OU of any kind that i have ever seen. Seriously, it is nothing less than proof positive - comprehensive, definitive, unassailable. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:09 PM, John Berry wrote: > Vibrator, do you have a machine that generates energy, a device that > powers itself? > > If so, then yes it is beyond question that you have done it, call me > captain obvious. > > Then it is a question of if you are honest, personally I would be willing > to consider that is possible as I believe that CoE and CoM have been > violated in the past by other devices. > > But really, you need to say that yes, the device powers itself if you want > to be beyond any possibility you are wrong. > If it does, then assuming you are acting in good faith, you need someone > else to replicate it. > It might be a good idea to provide a video with as much transparency as > possible to ensure people are willing to construct replicate your device. > > If you DON'T have a device that can run continuously, then you really need > to disclose all the details so people can understand the principle, and > help you work out how to build out. > > So really, you either should have a device that can power itself... In > which case you should video it and help someone replicate it, have that > person sign an NDA if you wish. > > Or you should be seeking help designing and building a device that can > power itself (and ideally a load). > Anything else is vanity, a waste of time etc... > > So, which is it, do you want help to replicate something you have already > done? Or to build something that you believe you have proven but not yet > demonstrated? > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > >> Short answer - i'm explicitly claiming an effective CoE violation. Your >> incredulity is entirely appropriate. It sounds like complete heresy. I'm >> saying it's meticulously measured and a direct consequence of CoM and CoE >> holding precisely as they're supposed to, beyond any possibility of error. >> I am absolutely susceptible
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
> > I don't think so. The earth has experienced an unbalanced attraction to 2 > Kg masses in free-fall near its surface - so it will have accelerated > upwards slightly to meet these masses (just as it accelerates upwards to > meet the moon when the moon is overhead). Precisely! If we cycle this interaction using the angular - linear example, then we're inputting momentum, to Earth, from gravity, on each full cycle.. thus the "center of momentum" reference frame between Earth and the weight has been shifted upwards on each cycle! We're applying reactionless momentum to Earth, from its own gravity field! The net system of Earth-plus-weight has thus become an effective warp drive - gaining unilateral momentum sourced from its own gravity well / 'warp field'.. However there's nothing special about Earth or gravity in this interaction either - force is force, F=mA, A=F/m, m=F/A, regardless of its provenance or rest frame! The 'earth' (or whatever stands in for it) is thus momentarily accelerating upwards towards an inertially-suspended mass that is not accelerating back down in reciprocation! (I imagine you intended 19.62 kg-m^2-rad/sec^2 here?) > Beg your pardon, yes - it's just a 1 second acceleration though, so still the same value. That value IS 9.81 however, not 19.62 - remember we're now dealing with an angular inertia, not a gravitating one, so the only force being applied between it and the weight is 9.81 N / 9.81 N-m. Agreed but you haven't specified at what radius the ripcord is being > applied to? The moment of inertia is one thing (and it seems you are > trying to keep it constant), but the radius at which you apply the force > (via a ripcord or whatever) to produce torque, and spin-up the wheel is a > separate parameter that you haven't discussed? > For 1 kg at 1 m radius assume an equal spool radius, so we're on the same page.. the applied 9.81 N force pulls the cord whilst pushing the weight up. The weight thus hovers in mid air under no net vertical force, whilst the rotor gains 9.81 p/s. This is effectively 'reactionless' momentum with regards to the 'closed system' of two interacting inertias - only one of which was accelerated, but which we also wouldn't have been able to accelerate without the other one to apply a the force against. You're right however that it isn't really 'closed' since it encompasses Earth, via gravity. Again, this is not the interaction i'm using to create energy. But it is an interesting example of conventional assumptions being challenged. If you change the moment of inertia of something that is already spinning > then its spin-rate and stored energy changes. This is the well known > effect that occurs when a spinning skater pulls in her arms. Her moment of > inertia decreases which means that spin rate must increase (to keep angular > momentum the same), and likewise the energy stored in the spin must > increase (she supplied this energy by pulling her arms in against > centrifugal force). > I meant, if we change the mass of the rotor, keeping all else equal but changing its MoI, then the same 9.81 N force will cause the 1 kg weight to rise or fall, instead of just sitting there vertically balanced. Wasn't referring to inertial torques from changing MoI on the fly. My point was simply to provide graphic demonstration of the equality of the two inertias, despite having different dimensions. Fundamentally 'inertia' is a function of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time - this resolves angular and linear terms. Gravity is a 9.81 N force, so the time rate of change in momentum of a gravitating system is 9.81 p/s, regardless of the relative nature of radians as units of angular displacement. Again, consider the weight tugging the horizontally-sliding mass - no matter how heavy that non-gravitating inertia, the rate of change in p is 9.81 p/s/kg of gravitating mass. This does not change when we switch the non-gravitating mass to an angular inertia instead, irrespective of the relative units we use to describe its velocity! This change in momentum value as a function of time accelerating is usually symmetrical to the momentum value as a function of GPE / GMH - so we would calculate the same potential change in net system momentum from either the time or height references. But add your 'ice skater' effect into that mix and that symmetry gets broken... Sorry but I don't see your argument. I am not sure what you mean by > "absolute" inertia? Are you speaking of inertia (=mass) or moment of > inertia (=mass x radius^2) or maybe momentum (m v) or maybe angular > momentum (m r^2 rad/s)? They are all very different quantities with > different units and different dimensions and cannot be added or compared in > magnitude. I think i've made my point here - just because we're measuring, say, 19.62 kg-m^-rad/sec /sec^2 does not mean we're obtaining twice as much angular momentum as another rotor with half the M
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Vibrator, do you have a machine that generates energy, a device that powers itself? If so, then yes it is beyond question that you have done it, call me captain obvious. Then it is a question of if you are honest, personally I would be willing to consider that is possible as I believe that CoE and CoM have been violated in the past by other devices. But really, you need to say that yes, the device powers itself if you want to be beyond any possibility you are wrong. If it does, then assuming you are acting in good faith, you need someone else to replicate it. It might be a good idea to provide a video with as much transparency as possible to ensure people are willing to construct replicate your device. If you DON'T have a device that can run continuously, then you really need to disclose all the details so people can understand the principle, and help you work out how to build out. So really, you either should have a device that can power itself... In which case you should video it and help someone replicate it, have that person sign an NDA if you wish. Or you should be seeking help designing and building a device that can power itself (and ideally a load). Anything else is vanity, a waste of time etc... So, which is it, do you want help to replicate something you have already done? Or to build something that you believe you have proven but not yet demonstrated? On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > Short answer - i'm explicitly claiming an effective CoE violation. Your > incredulity is entirely appropriate. It sounds like complete heresy. I'm > saying it's meticulously measured and a direct consequence of CoM and CoE > holding precisely as they're supposed to, beyond any possibility of error. > I am absolutely susceptible TO error, but because of that i've done my > due diligence, to eliminate my own stupidity as a factor. > > Dancing around this issue point-by-point when i haven't presented you with > evidence of the claim is probably redundant.. like i say if i can't enlist > any help with it by the w/e i'll post it up here, though i'm setting my > expectations low, just as you are.. > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:20 AM, John Shop wrote: > >> On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: >> >> Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially >> incomplete. >> >> All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity >> manifesting that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between >> the respective force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar - >> essentially, 'ambient' quantum momentum. >> >> When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number >> scribbled down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation >> determined by the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated >> at lightspeed - ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the >> respective dimensions of the given energy terms. >> >> Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective >> dimensions, any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes >> in time and space is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how >> each term scales in the other's domain. >> >> If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains, >> then their equality is a given. And yet, it would be a step too far to >> conclude that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it. >> When we spend 1 J lifting a weight, so having performed work against >> gravity, there isn't a tab somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J". The >> fact that we only get 1 J back out from the drop is simply an incidental >> consequence of the invariant input vs output conditions. But it's not >> manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just the same amount of energy / >> work. >> >> I agree with you. It is not manifestly the same joule. So depositing >> money in the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power >> into the electricity grid). I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills >> and pull the same amount out in another city in $50 bills. It is not >> manifestly the same cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes >> sure that the amounts always balance! So Nature does the same job as the >> bank tellers and accountants. Whenever you do the calculation correctly, >> after allowing for incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance >> sheet always balances perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that >> gravity owes Bob 1 J! >> >> You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother >> Nature. The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations. When >> applied correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the >> equations themselves are balanced. I believe that you can achieve an >> imbalance, but not by operating in accord with Newton's equations. You >> have to do something a lot more subtle and sneaky and disc
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Short answer - i'm explicitly claiming an effective CoE violation. Your
incredulity is entirely appropriate. It sounds like complete heresy. I'm
saying it's meticulously measured and a direct consequence of CoM and CoE
holding precisely as they're supposed to, beyond any possibility of error.
I am absolutely susceptible TO error, but because of that i've done my
due diligence, to eliminate my own stupidity as a factor.
Dancing around this issue point-by-point when i haven't presented you with
evidence of the claim is probably redundant.. like i say if i can't enlist
any help with it by the w/e i'll post it up here, though i'm setting my
expectations low, just as you are..
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:20 AM, John Shop wrote:
> On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
> incomplete.
>
> All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity
> manifesting that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between
> the respective force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar -
> essentially, 'ambient' quantum momentum.
>
> When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number
> scribbled down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation
> determined by the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated
> at lightspeed - ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the
> respective dimensions of the given energy terms.
>
> Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective
> dimensions, any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes
> in time and space is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how
> each term scales in the other's domain.
>
> If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains,
> then their equality is a given. And yet, it would be a step too far to
> conclude that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it.
> When we spend 1 J lifting a weight, so having performed work against
> gravity, there isn't a tab somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J". The
> fact that we only get 1 J back out from the drop is simply an incidental
> consequence of the invariant input vs output conditions. But it's not
> manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just the same amount of energy /
> work.
>
> I agree with you. It is not manifestly the same joule. So depositing
> money in the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power
> into the electricity grid). I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills
> and pull the same amount out in another city in $50 bills. It is not
> manifestly the same cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes
> sure that the amounts always balance! So Nature does the same job as the
> bank tellers and accountants. Whenever you do the calculation correctly,
> after allowing for incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance
> sheet always balances perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that
> gravity owes Bob 1 J!
>
> You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother
> Nature. The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations. When
> applied correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the
> equations themselves are balanced. I believe that you can achieve an
> imbalance, but not by operating in accord with Newton's equations. You
> have to do something a lot more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect
> that has not been noticed and a term that has not been included in the
> equations. And it is bound to be a small effect (eg < 1% of energy being
> exchanged) or it would have been noticed a long time ago.
>
> With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more
> out, or less. An under-unity, or over-unity result.
>
>
> Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in
> which the energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade
> heat. I'm talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense.
> For example:
>
> - Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper
> in 1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to
> latch onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the
> iron's subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach
> its corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if
> its coercivity is low enough).
>
> So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long
> after the mechanical action's all over.
>
> We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and
> audio amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as
> progressively harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of
> their lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise
> abates, and so we know the sample's at Bmax.
>
> We now prise them apart again, however because B
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
At any rate, I think you can agree that some thought experiments, seemingly applying the laws of physics as we understand them lead to some possibilities for breaking the laws or physics as we understand them. And if software than could calculate all of that was run and predicted some violation, it might be correct based on out understanding and maybe in reality too and not a glitch. I personally doubt any of these schemes is how true violations happen, they occur IMO by disturbing the fabric of space, mske interactions asymmetric. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:04 PM, John Shop wrote: > On 5/06/2018 1:51 PM, John Berry wrote: > > Actually, I have another one... > > Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop > experiences a pushing outwards. > > Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor > plates. > > No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a > force pushing away from the center. > But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and > while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the > force placed? > > It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric > permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe > it is virtual particles being polarized? > > The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment > before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions > all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. > > This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be > polarized, then it can also be thrust against! > > Indeed I also thought about this situation at great length a long time > ago, and even built a device which might have worked. However at the time > I did not have an RF generator so tried to drive it by exciting the circuit > with sparking. I did not see any effect and doing some calculations > suggested that any effect that may be obtained with reasonable componentry > will be negligibly small. How do you get even a fraction of an amp to flow > through a capacitor with large spacing between the plates!? Only by using > very high frequencies! And then you need the same very high frequency > magnetic field to be generated 90 degrees out of phase with the > displacement current passing through the capacitor to produce some force. > A very difficult experiment that *might* achieve a negligibly small effect! >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 1:51 PM, John Berry wrote: Actually, I have another one... Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop experiences a pushing outwards. Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates. No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a force pushing away from the center. But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the force placed? It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe it is virtual particles being polarized? The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be polarized, then it can also be thrust against! Indeed I also thought about this situation at great length a long time ago, and even built a device which might have worked. However at the time I did not have an RF generator so tried to drive it by exciting the circuit with sparking. I did not see any effect and doing some calculations suggested that any effect that may be obtained with reasonable componentry will be negligibly small. How do you get even a fraction of an amp to flow through a capacitor with large spacing between the plates!? Only by using very high frequencies! And then you need the same very high frequency magnetic field to be generated 90 degrees out of phase with the displacement current passing through the capacitor to produce some force. A very difficult experiment that *might* achieve a negligibly small effect!
