Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Hello John Berry, Yes, I am forced to write date as you say. Logic? No way. Then you ought to start with seconds when you give the time. Correct is of course /MM/DD just like the time HH/MM/SS. Another thing to pick up from Europe is the usage of 24 hour clock and to use the week number for delivery time etc. I am glad you guys in this forum does not use lbs, feet and stuff like that.Pint I do agree with:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Europeans use a comma instead of a decimal point. Yes, very confusing in some cases. Russians putting dollar signs at the end: 100$ May be consistent with the what we do other things, so it is logical, but still wrong. And what about electrical wiring colour codes! For one it changes from country to country somewhat, moreover it changes over time. And talk about one that REALLY matters! And the current scheme kills people who guess. Ok, so there is Brown, that MUST by the earth! What idiot would decide that should be the colour for live? The one is bright striped colours looks like a clear warning,looks like I should stay well clear of the obvious danger. And blue, the colour of electricity, must be the neutral Maybe it is the brown one because it is the colour your undies will be after you touch it. Ok, and one week from now is 04.03.2014 (dd/mm/) for me, but many reading will think I meant a month and a week away. John
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
John-- What does SR stand for or mean? Bob From: John Berry Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism Here we go again... I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion. But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary for this view of magnetism. First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding. Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as it would differ greatly in many respects. Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would move in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from these electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the disk would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the polarity of the radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field pancaking view, or from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with the protons view. But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both the electron and proton generated magnetic field. But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage would have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not contributing to the field. The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, and a stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a magnetic field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the electrons magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the proton's effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand it. Basically the induction from the protons would cancel the induction from the electrons. I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring which direction it is rotated. And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in a stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 influences are balanced. Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to hall effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity of applied current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced than seemingly identical equivalent situations. It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone unnoticed. If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the electrons through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for any of these issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all frames identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would exist no matter what your motion is relative to that wire. John Because the
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Posters: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/scientific-writing.pdf *Guidelines for Writing a Scientific Paper* Quote: Abbreviations. Use standard abbreviations (hr, min, sec, etc) instead of writing complete words. Some common abbreviations that do not require definition are shown on the attached table. Define all other abbreviations the first time they are used, then subsequently use the abbreviation [e.g. Ampicillin resistant (AmpR)]. As a general rule, do not use an abbreviation unless a term is used at least three times in the manuscript. With two exceptions (the degree symbol and percent symbol), a space should be left between numbers and the accompanying unit. In general, abbreviations should not be written in the plural form (e.g. 1 ml or 5 ml, not mls). IMHO, in a post as an exception because the post is usually so short in length, defining an abbreviation should be done no matter how few times it is used. If you want your posts to be impactful to your readers and easy to read, follow good writing practices. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- What does SR stand for or mean? Bob *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 3:32 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism Here we go again... I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion. But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary for this view of magnetism. First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding. Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as it would differ greatly in many respects. Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would move in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from these electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the disk would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the polarity of the radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field pancaking view, or from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with the protons view. But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both the electron and proton generated magnetic field. But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage would have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not contributing to the field. The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, and a stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a magnetic field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the electrons magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the proton's effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand it. Basically the induction from the protons would cancel the induction from the electrons. I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring which direction it is rotated. And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in a stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 influences are balanced. Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to hall effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity of applied current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced than seemingly identical equivalent situations. It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone unnoticed. If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the electrons through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for any of these issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all frames identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would exist no matter what your motion is relative to that wire. John Because the
RE: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
What does SR stand for or mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Abbreviations. Use standard abbreviations (hr, min, sec, etc) instead of writing complete words. Actually, those are units, not abbreviations. You are supposed to use s not sec: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html Hour is h not hr, and both h and min are officially outside of the SI units (metric system): http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html *Do* try to get the prefixes right -- k for kilo- M for mega- small m for milli-: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html Some common abbreviations that do not require definition are shown on the attached table. Define all other abbreviations the first time they are used, then subsequently use the abbreviation Good idea. But not for units. As a general rule, do not use an abbreviation unless a term is used at least three times in the manuscript. Good practice. However, in a specialized forum such as this, it is okay to abbreviate often-used words such as CF (cold fusion) the first time you use them, and perhaps even H.A.D. (heat after death). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Also, electron-volt is lowercase e: eV Liter is officially outside the SI system, but it is acceptable. It should be capital L, to avoid confusing it with the digit 1. Milliliters are lowercase l as in 100 ml, which is inconsistent. This is supposed to be outside the pale, but it is used. NIST explains: The liter in Table 6 deserves comment. This unit and its symbol l were adopted by the CIPM in 1879. The alternative symbol for the liter, L, was adopted by the CGPM in 1979 in order to avoid the risk of confusion between the letter l and the number 1. Thus, although *both* l and L are internationally accepted symbols for the liter, to avoid this risk the preferred symbol for use in the United States is L. Neither a lowercase script letter l nor an uppercase script letter L are approved symbols for the liter. In Japan, they sometime use a lowercase script l to indicate liter, like this: ℓ. The official SI symbol for thousands is a half-space, which is nuts. One million is: 1 000 000. Who does that? I say 1,000,000. Europeans use a comma instead of a decimal point. That's just wrong. Sorry, but it's wrong, like spreading Nutella on bread for breakfast. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
For us binary geeks, k means 1000 and K means 1024 ( usually referring to bits or bytes in disk drives or memory ). M should mean 1024*1024 but it looks like it's been pre-empted: From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:48 AM Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Do try to get the prefixes right -- k for kilo- M for mega- small m for milli-: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: For us binary geeks, k means 1000 and K means 1024 . . . Plus B is byte and lowercase b is bit. My favorite non-SI unit is the millihelen, a face that is beautiful enough to launch one ship. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
From: Jed Rothwell Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: For us binary geeks, k means 1000 and K means 1024 . . . Plus B is byte and lowercase b is bit. My favorite non-SI unit is the millihelen, a face that is beautiful enough to launch one ship. Then there is the quantum of largeness: S (Carl Sagan's number) which is billions and billions attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Jones, the reason I find SR so interesting for LENR is based on Naudts paper indicating the hydrino to be relativistic. Unlike the macro world where contraction and dilation require near C velocity or equivalent acceleration from a deep gravity well the principles of virtual particle suppression are not based on spatial displacement... The geometry of Ni powder or skeletal catalyst changes the velocity of random gas motion in a unique way by modifying local space time in violation of the isotropy.. the inverse of spacing between nano boundaries trumps the square law in Casimir geometry and breaches the isotropy in these geometrical regions where we load gas to observe the anomalous reaction. Although the region is small and dilation is backward compared to Paradox twin the effect is provided free of charge by nature and all we really need to do is concentrate on safe guarding the geometry against the natural forces trying to negate it. To elevate these hotspots uniformly in a Rossi like reactor while drawing down the thermal energy without extinguishing the reaction or melting the geometry may be a bigger part of the secret than even his secret sauce. It could be this mechanism surrounds us in our everyday world but is rolled into our observations as a baseline. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism What does SR stand for or mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Special Relativity Sorry. I should have probably included the full version at least once. On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- What does SR stand for or mean? Bob *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 3:32 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism Here we go again... I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion. But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary for this view of magnetism. First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding. Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as it would differ greatly in many respects. Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would move in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from these electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the disk would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the polarity of the radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field pancaking view, or from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with the protons view. But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both the electron and proton generated magnetic field. But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage would have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not contributing to the field. The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, and a stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a magnetic field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the electrons magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the proton's effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand it. Basically the induction from the protons would cancel the induction from the electrons. I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring which direction it is rotated. And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in a stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 influences are balanced. Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to hall effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity of applied current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced than seemingly identical equivalent situations. It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone unnoticed. If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the electrons through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for any of these issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all frames identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would exist no matter what your motion is relative to that wire. John Because the
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Then there is the quantum of largeness: S (Carl Sagan's number) which is billions and billions And there are 2 different billions 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 And 2 different trillions 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 So I guess it could matter a lot, are you talking billions and billions or BILLIONS and BILLIONS? Incompatibilities suck, one I hate the most is that there are 2 different and opposite ways of naming the poles of a magnet. Mostly the end that points north is called the north end, except for when it isn't! John
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That's just wrong. Sorry, but it's wrong, like spreading Nutella on bread for breakfast. That's actually quite good. It's Vegemite that has the reputation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Europeans use a comma instead of a decimal point. Yes, very confusing in some cases. Russians putting dollar signs at the end: 100$ May be consistent with the what we do other things, so it is logical, but still wrong. And what about electrical wiring colour codes! For one it changes from country to country somewhat, moreover it changes over time. And talk about one that REALLY matters! And the current scheme kills people who guess. Ok, so there is Brown, that MUST by the earth! What idiot would decide that should be the colour for live? The one is bright striped colours looks like a clear warning,looks like I should stay well clear of the obvious danger. And blue, the colour of electricity, must be the neutral Maybe it is the brown one because it is the colour your undies will be after you touch it. Ok, and one week from now is 04.03.2014 (dd/mm/) for me, but many reading will think I meant a month and a week away. John
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
The HPG (or more recently known as N-Machine or SPG) is a provocative idea that still defies conventions. I still haven't seen it fully verified to my satisfaction (even after extensive funding for DePalma in late 80s early 90s plus two independent evaluations). I think there is something very profound to learn from its operation, but whether it is a true over unity device is still an open question. The second evaluator (Stanford Emeritus Professor) was critical of DePalma's measurements, but said he noticed a number of anomalous properties outside the current paradigm of electrical engineering. He basically said it was worthy of more study and was not disproven. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:32 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Here we go again... I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion. But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary for this view of magnetism. First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding. Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as it would differ greatly in many respects. Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would move in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from these electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the disk would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the polarity of the radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field pancaking view, or from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with the protons view. But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both the electron and proton generated magnetic field. But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage would have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not contributing to the field. The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, and a stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a magnetic field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the electrons magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the proton's effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand it. Basically the induction from the protons would cancel the induction from the electrons. I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring which direction it is rotated. And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in a stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 influences are balanced. Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to hall effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity of applied current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced than seemingly identical equivalent situations. It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone unnoticed. If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the electrons through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for any of these issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all frames identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would exist no matter what your motion is relative to that wire. John Because the
Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism
Yes, but my interest in it here is not as a free energy device, but a test of how magnteic fields are generated by moving charges. On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The HPG (or more recently known as N-Machine or SPG) is a provocative idea that still defies conventions. I still haven't seen it fully verified to my satisfaction (even after extensive funding for DePalma in late 80s early 90s plus two independent evaluations). I think there is something very profound to learn from its operation, but whether it is a true over unity device is still an open question. The second evaluator (Stanford Emeritus Professor) was critical of DePalma's measurements, but said he noticed a number of anomalous properties outside the current paradigm of electrical engineering. He basically said it was worthy of more study and was not disproven. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:32 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Here we go again... I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion. But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary for this view of magnetism. First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding. Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as it would differ greatly in many respects. Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would move in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from these electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the disk would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the polarity of the radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field pancaking view, or from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with the protons view. But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both the electron and proton generated magnetic field. But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage would have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not contributing to the field. The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, and a stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a magnetic field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the electrons magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the proton's effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand it. Basically the induction from the protons would cancel the induction from the electrons. I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring which direction it is rotated. And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in a stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 influences are balanced. Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to hall effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity of applied current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced than seemingly identical equivalent situations. It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone unnoticed. If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the electrons through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for any of these issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all frames identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would exist no matter what your motion is relative to that wire. John Because the
