Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: >> On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics >>> community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around >>> the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems >>> promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money on it. >> >> Naaa. It's because Lisa Randall is working on it: >> >> http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html >> >> And her sister is why so many people are studying computers: >> >> http://www.math.gatech.edu/~randall/ > > > > I'd hardly consider her the reason. There are far too many bigger fish > working on M-theory than Lisa Randall. Umm, Ed Witten for one, lol. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > Keeping the universe neat and tidy is women's work. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Harry Veeder wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics >> community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around >> the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems >> promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money on it. > > > I would call it a church with a lot of power. > e.g. The catholic church spent so much time and money building cathedrals in > the middle ages. > > Harry Silliness. Nearly every great physicist alive appreciates M-theory, from Stephen Hawking to Dr. Michio Kaku. Stephen Hawking said in a recent interview --> February 8, 2006: Question: "What do you think is the greatest unanswered question in modern physics?" Answer by Stephen Hawking: "We think M-theory is the ***ultimate theory*** of the universe, but we understand it only at certain limits, where some quantities are zero or very small. It is as if we had fitted together the edge pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, but we still have a gaping hole in the middle. And of course it may be that we find we have the wrong picture. We have learned to expect the unexpected." Question: "How do you think our everyday life will be affected, if string theory, which is discussed in your book A Briefer History of Time, or the more advanced version of string theory, M-theory, is proven to be true?" Answer by Stephen Hawking: " We already know the laws that govern nature in all but the most extreme conditions, such as the origin of the universe. When we understand string theory, we will know how the universe began. It won't have much effect on how we live, but surely it is important to understand where we come from, and what we can expect to find as we explore the universe." Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics > community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around > the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems > promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money on it. I would call it a church with a lot of power. e.g. The catholic church spent so much time and money building cathedrals in the middle ages. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Terry Blanton wrote: > On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics >> community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around >> the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems >> promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money on it. > > Naaa. It's because Lisa Randall is working on it: > > http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html > > And her sister is why so many people are studying computers: > > http://www.math.gatech.edu/~randall/ I'd hardly consider her the reason. There are far too many bigger fish working on M-theory than Lisa Randall. Umm, Ed Witten for one, lol. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money on it. Naaa. It's because Lisa Randall is working on it: http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html And her sister is why so many people are studying computers: http://www.math.gatech.edu/~randall/ Terry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > Mega tax dollars being spent on superstring theory and the like is perhaps the largest 21st century violation of "separation of church and state" that exists. No one seems to know if the thing can be proven or disproven at all, its a big argument. This is not science, it is is religion. There is vast difference between religion and spirituality or metaphysics. Religions are based on faith, repetitive actions such as bowing X amount of times, eating something such as bread, drinking something such as wine or grape juice, saying a bunch of words, etc. No offense, and there's nothing wrong those acts in particular, but what does indeed do the harm is when they demand others follow there actions to the point of killing and/or causing wars. Spirituality or metaphysics on the other hand should be about developing the mind and heart. If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money on it. Good luck to you, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics No offense to anyone, but I just cannot imagine not hearing about M-theory. It's by far the biggest thing in physics now. Sort of like Scientology is a "big thing." If M-theory is proven then it will replace QM, which is why so many top physicists are diligently working on M-theory. A great deal of money is being spent to prove M-theory by means of experimentation. Mega tax dollars being spent on superstring theory and the like is perhaps the largest 21st century violation of "separation of church and state" that exists. No one seems to know if the thing can be proven or disproven at all, its a big argument. This is not science, it is is religion. No one can cough up any money to try and find out if LENR/CANR is really a real thing, but we can use tax dollars to finance theoreticians sitting around all day long composing the divine theory of everything. M-theory removes all the chaos found in QM and reveals a calm and ***predictable*** universe. I love theories that predict the predictable...they are excellent playthings for we experimenters to blast holes in for sport. The problem seems to be, however, that the composers of said hypotheses have an almost unlimited supply of mathematical duct tape to cover the holes. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics In any case, if it were to prescan the path as you suggest, information would need to flow from the target to the particle "instantly", which violates the speed limit of C and hence causality in a relativistic universe. I.e., some observers would see the information traveling backwards in time. It is not necessary that some observers see the information moving "back in time." It can be forward in time for all frames of reference, but it requires a sort of rearranging of things as far as the definition of simultaneity goes. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Michel Jullian wrote: >> > A wave packet coalescing into a point-like particle when it hits the screen, yes that's about as close to common sense understandability as it can get. Makes one realize the wave aspect of particles is a hard fact. >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment >> >> >> Any QM expert can correct any possible errors, but here's how I've understood the double slit. Both slits are open. Before the single photon even emits it must decide which hole it is going to go through. To accomplish this task it is understood that the photon "plays out" the entire process before hand, like some theatrical play. This is called the wave function. So instantly the wave function traverses the path, travels through both slits, and hits the detection screen, and from there decides what path the photon will take. Supposedly the wave function traverses at infinite velocity as if there were no time. > > Wheeler's delayed choice experiment shows pretty clearly that it doesn't work that way -- you can change the target after the particle is in flight, even after it's "gone through" the slits To understand my interpretation you need to think in 4-dimensions. What you said clarifies exactly what I said. Again, it appears the idea of the photon traveling through space is invalid. Lets step through the experiment --> We'll refer to the appearing mirror as D. 1. D is removed. 2a. At t=0 the photon is emitted. 2b. At t=0 there's a wave function for the photon. The wave function spreads out and extends into the *future*. You can think of the future as a dimension. 3a. At t=1 D is activated. 3b. At t=1 there's a wave function for D (for simplicity we'll refer to it as one function). Note, the photons wave function (from step 2b, above) crosses this wave function. 3c. Photons wave functions collapses when it senses D's wave function. 4. At t=2 the photon strikes D. In a nutshell, the wave function spreads across space, without the time aspect, like tentacles extending out in time. The mirror, D, is also made of matter that has wave functions. Do you understand it now? So the wave functions from both the photon and the mirror decide, by so-called laws of probability, what will take place. What occurs is merely a result of that decision / probability. > , and change whether you get an interference pattern or not: at the very last femtosecond, replace the screen with a pair of telescopes that let you tell where the flash came from; do this for every particle, and the interference pattern vanishes. This experiment has been done. And it's in agreement with what I said. > You can replace the screen with the telescopes just before the particle hits the screen and it has the same effect as replacing it before the particle takes off. If the particle "made up its mind" before it took off, and hence physically traversed one pre-determined slit or the other and arrived at a pre-determined point in space where it "expects" the screen to be, the experiment would not work as it does. No, you're still thinking in terms of 3-dimensions. > In any case, if it were to prescan the path as you suggest, information would need to flow from the target to the particle "instantly", which violates the speed limit of C and hence causality in a relativistic universe. I.e., some observers would see the information traveling backwards in time. The interpretation doesn't work that way. The wave functions (plural) make the decision, like rolling dice. The actual particle does not arrive at its destination faster than c. It's the wave function that instantly spreads, but the wave function is not 3-dimensional physical object. [snip] Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
en my gripe about QM from the start. Today we have high speed photography and computers, which could allow us to predict things such as a drop of water bouncing all over the place on a hot skillet. What seemed impossible a 1000 years ago is trivial today. In the same sense, what may seem impossible to QM will be predictable and trivial. Lets hope M-theory is closer to the truth. Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:58 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> OrionWorks wrote: >>>> From: Michel Jullian >>>> >>>> Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or >>>> electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof >>>> of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can >>>> anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference >>>> patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all >>>> right, but does QM itself make common sense? >>>> >>>> Michel >>> The only logical explanation my brain can make out of the paradoxical >> double >>> slit experiment is the notion that what we perceive, and more importantly >>> MEASURE, as "particles" are perhaps not really ISOLATED pinpoints >>> of –matter- after all. >>> >>> The only rational explanation I can comprehend is that what we define as >>> ISOLATED pin-points of "matter" are most likely waves of EM energy >> that have >>> coalesced or configured themselves into patterns that our measuring >> devices, >>> which reside in the macro world, interpret as "physical" particles. Of >>> course, WE are the ones doing all the interpreting. It's as if there >> is an >>> almost desperate-like human tendency to fit as much bizzare QM >> behavior into >>> the more framiliar rules of the macro world, cuz that's the only >> reality our >>> brains can make any sense out of. And indeed, these highly >> concentrated EM >>> patterns may occasionally seem to take on the characteristics of "matter" >>> which we human beings find so comforting. But to define these QM patterns >>> (i.e. photons) as ISOLATED pin points of "matter" does not >> necessarily mean >>> it's the most accurate interpretation of what is really going on >> under the >>> hood. >>> >>> Oh dear, caught in the act of pontificating, once again. >>> >>> >From a strictly philosophical non-scientific POV it all seems to >> come down >>> to MAYA, the illusion of reality that we all seem to be so entranced >> with. >>> The sand box, after all, with all of its inherent granularity can >>> occasionally be a fun place in which to build temporary sand castles in. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven Vincent Johnson >>> www.OrionWorks.com >> >> >> What's fascinating about double slit is its wave and particle duality. >> The bar patterns demonstrate the electrons wave behavior, like a >> wave-train or pulse. On the other hand there's just one collision on the >> screen per electron. If the electron were merely a wave then it would >> crash against the screen like an oceans wave. That's probably why it's >> referred to as the collapse of the wave function in QM. >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > A wave packet coalescing into a point-like particle when it hits the screen, yes that's about as close to common sense understandability as it can get. Makes one realize the wave aspect of particles is a hard fact. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Any QM expert can correct any possible errors, but here's how I've understood the double slit. Both slits are open. Before the single photon even emits it must decide which hole it is going to go through. To accomplish this task it is understood that the photon "plays out" the entire process before hand, like some theatrical play. This is called the wave function. So instantly the wave function traverses the path, travels through both slits, and hits the detection screen, and from there decides what path the photon will take. Supposedly the wave function traverses at infinite velocity as if there were no time. Note that the wave function causes interference patterns on the detection screen due to the double slits. So now the photon knows exactly where it will strike. There are physicists who interpret this as meaning the photon never traverses space, but simply transports to its new guaranteed location. Now, what if we tried to detect which slit the photon traversed through. In this case the wave function would consider the new detection device the new destination. Therefore, the photon would strike the detection device (collapse of the wave function) and from that location the photon would generate a new wave function, which is why the interference patterns vanish when trying to detect which slit the photon travels through. What is amazing is how the wave function predicts the future. For example, lets say we emit the single photon while the detection device is off and then quickly turn on the detection device before the photon is expected to arrive. It seems somehow the photon is able to predict all of this! This predictable nature is displayed in the "Delayed choice" experiment --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment I would like to know if or how M-theory predicts the double slit experiment. For those who are not aware of M-theory (Wow, yikes, where have you been!) --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory No offense to anyone, but I just cannot imagine not hearing about M-theory. It's by far the biggest thing in physics now. In 1995 Edward Witten created M-theory from the five flavors of superstring theories. At one time there were five flavors of superstring theories, which drove physicists crazy as to why. They questioned if God couldn't make up his mind, and thought perhaps God simply made five versions, lol. Then came the genius, Ed Witten, who solved the big puzzle to discover mathematically all five flavors were really the same thing. If M-theory is proven then it will replace QM, which is why so many top physicists are diligently working on M-theory. A great deal of money is being spent to prove M-theory by means of experimentation. M-theory removes all the chaos found in QM and reveals a calm and ***predictable*** universe. IMHO the true nature of reality resembles something far closer to M-theory than QM, which has been my gripe about QM from the start. Today we have high speed photography and computers, which could allow us to predict things such as a drop of water bouncing all over the place on a hot skillet. What seemed impossible a 1000 years ago is trivial today. In the same sense, what may seem impossible to QM will be predictable and trivial. Lets hope M-theory is closer to the truth. Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:58 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> OrionWorks wrote: >>>> From: Michel Jullian >>>> >>>> Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or >>>> electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof >>>> of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can >>>> anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference >>>> patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all >>>> right, but does QM itself make common sense? >>>> >>>> Michel >>> The only logical explanation my brain can make out of the paradoxical >> double >>> slit experiment is the notion that what we perceive, and more importantly >>> MEASURE, as "particles" are perhaps not really ISOLATED pinpoints >>> of –matter- after all. >>> >>> The only rational explanation I ca
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
A wave packet coalescing into a point-like particle when it hits the screen, yes that's about as close to common sense understandability as it can get. Makes one realize the wave aspect of particles is a hard fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Michel - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > OrionWorks wrote: > >> From: Michel Jullian > >> > >> Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or > >> electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof > >> of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can > >> anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference > >> patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all > >> right, but does QM itself make common sense? > >> > >> Michel > > > > The only logical explanation my brain can make out of the paradoxical > double > > slit experiment is the notion that what we perceive, and more importantly > > MEASURE, as "particles" are perhaps not really ISOLATED pinpoints > > of –matter- after all. > > > > The only rational explanation I can comprehend is that what we define as > > ISOLATED pin-points of "matter" are most likely waves of EM energy > that have > > coalesced or configured themselves into patterns that our measuring > devices, > > which reside in the macro world, interpret as "physical" particles. Of > > course, WE are the ones doing all the interpreting. It's as if there > is an > > almost desperate-like human tendency to fit as much bizzare QM > behavior into > > the more framiliar rules of the macro world, cuz that's the only > reality our > > brains can make any sense out of. And indeed, these highly > concentrated EM > > patterns may occasionally seem to take on the characteristics of "matter" > > which we human beings find so comforting. But to define these QM patterns > > (i.e. photons) as ISOLATED pin points of "matter" does not > necessarily mean > > it's the most accurate interpretation of what is really going on > under the > > hood. > > > > Oh dear, caught in the act of pontificating, once again. > > > > >From a strictly philosophical non-scientific POV it all seems to > come down > > to MAYA, the illusion of reality that we all seem to be so entranced > with. > > The sand box, after all, with all of its inherent granularity can > > occasionally be a fun place in which to build temporary sand castles in. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > www.OrionWorks.com > > > > What's fascinating about double slit is its wave and particle duality. > The bar patterns demonstrate the electrons wave behavior, like a > wave-train or pulse. On the other hand there's just one collision on the > screen per electron. If the electron were merely a wave then it would > crash against the screen like an oceans wave. That's probably why it's > referred to as the collapse of the wave function in QM. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote: >> From: Michel Jullian >> >> Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or >> electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof >> of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can >> anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference >> patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all >> right, but does QM itself make common sense? >> >> Michel > > The only logical explanation my brain can make out of the paradoxical double > slit experiment is the notion that what we perceive, and more importantly > MEASURE, as "particles" are perhaps not really ISOLATED pinpoints > of –matter- after all. > > The only rational explanation I can comprehend is that what we define as > ISOLATED pin-points of "matter" are most likely waves of EM energy that have > coalesced or configured themselves into patterns that our measuring devices, > which reside in the macro world, interpret as "physical" particles. Of > course, WE are the ones doing all the interpreting. It's as if there is an > almost desperate-like human tendency to fit as much bizzare QM behavior into > the more framiliar rules of the macro world, cuz that's the only reality our > brains can make any sense out of. And indeed, these highly concentrated EM > patterns may occasionally seem to take on the characteristics of "matter" > which we human beings find so comforting. But to define these QM patterns > (i.e. photons) as ISOLATED pin points of "matter" does not necessarily mean > it's the most accurate interpretation of what is really going on under the > hood. > > Oh dear, caught in the act of pontificating, once again. > > >From a strictly philosophical non-scientific POV it all seems to come down > to MAYA, the illusion of reality that we all seem to be so entranced with. > The sand box, after all, with all of its inherent granularity can > occasionally be a fun place in which to build temporary sand castles in. > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com What's fascinating about double slit is its wave and particle duality. The bar patterns demonstrate the electrons wave behavior, like a wave-train or pulse. On the other hand there's just one collision on the screen per electron. If the electron were merely a wave then it would crash against the screen like an oceans wave. That's probably why it's referred to as the collapse of the wave function in QM. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
> From: Michel Jullian > > Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or > electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof > of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can > anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference > patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all > right, but does QM itself make common sense? > > Michel The only logical explanation my brain can make out of the paradoxical double slit experiment is the notion that what we perceive, and more importantly MEASURE, as "particles" are perhaps not really ISOLATED pinpoints of matter- after all. The only rational explanation I can comprehend is that what we define as ISOLATED pin-points of "matter" are most likely waves of EM energy that have coalesced or configured themselves into patterns that our measuring devices, which reside in the macro world, interpret as "physical" particles. Of course, WE are the ones doing all the interpreting. It's as if there is an almost desperate-like human tendency to fit as much bizzare QM behavior into the more framiliar rules of the macro world, cuz that's the only reality our brains can make any sense out of. And indeed, these highly concentrated EM patterns may occasionally seem to take on the characteristics of "matter" which we human beings find so comforting. But to define these QM patterns (i.e. photons) as ISOLATED pin points of "matter" does not necessarily mean it's the most accurate interpretation of what is really going on under the hood. Oh dear, caught in the act of pontificating, once again. >From a strictly philosophical non-scientific POV it all seems to come down to MAYA, the illusion of reality that we all seem to be so entranced with. The sand box, after all, with all of its inherent granularity can occasionally be a fun place in which to build temporary sand castles in. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Temporary energy, which you can retrieve once but have to expend > entirely to be able to retrieve it once more. Under normal circumstances, yes. Note that I've stated from the start of this thread that it's "temporary energy". On the other hand, read my previous posts regarding anti-matter colliding with matter. In such a case *it is possible to keep such energy.* :-) > Well, we seem to agree entirely after all. No overunity on a full cycle can be got from > the fundamental forces. No PMMs of the first kind can work. We agree, but take note this discussion never had anything to do with overunity. It has to do with the fact that standard physics has no idea where the energy comes from in the case of the electrons magnetic dipole moment. Energy is clearly manifesting as two magnets accelerate toward each other. Standard physics cannot see, probe, poke, touch such PE. Again, the point is that we can glimpse where such energy comes from when studying two attracted accelerating electro-magnets. > As to the origin of this one time energy, it's known IMHO, it's the work performed by > the fundamental force, like when you push your car the KE of the car is equal to the work > of your pushing force, what else? So the real mystery is the fundamental force which does > the work in fact, whether gravitational, electric or magnetic. Such energy is unknown regarding the electrons magnetic dipole moment. One day we'll known, but for now it's just magic PE, lol. Again, the electro-magnet clearly demonstrates the energy comes from whatever sustains the magnetic dipole moment. For now physicists simply add the energy in the equations and call it PE. Obviously we are not *required* to know where it comes from. The point is such energy exists and we have yet to find the reservoir. Obviously the energy exists, in the case of two magnets accelerating, and the fact that it requires appreciable amount of energy to create such particles. So it requires energy to create the electron and such energy is still there. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all right, but does QM itself make common sense? Michel - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > David Thomson wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > > >> Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane > >> slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the > >> two vortexes meet. > >> http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif > > > > This is a very nice image. > > > > Those are great questions. I'm still in the process of trying to > untangle the information since it's from a metaphysic source. Being > open-minded I'm studying the source because most of the information > meshes very well with my thoughts on reality. I would highly recommend > one of their books. At 540 pages, hardback, it's a bargain for $0.25. > Yes, that's 25 cents plus $2.50 S&H, tax free. :-) Actually there's > another guy on ebay selling it for one penny, but $3.50 S&H. > > Title: Infinite Concept of Cosmic Creation > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Infinite-Concept-of-Cosmic-Creation-by-Ernest-L-Nor_W0QQitemZ110065440758QQihZ001QQcategoryZ378QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem > > http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=%22infinite+concept+of+cosmic+creation%22&category0=&submitSearch=Search > > Note this book was published in 1956! > > Roughly 20 years ago I glanced through the book, and truly such > information did not mess as well, and therefore went over my head. Last > month I glanced through the book and was surprised at how much > information made more sense, but left it at that. A few days ago I once > again glanced through the book and was shocked at the connections I'm > unraveling. Most of such connections were ignited by my recent physics > simulation research. Every day I become more amazed ... no, dumb > founded how nature (our universe) accomplishes things, at its > intelligence. It's nearly impossible to describe unless one delves deep > in the attempts of simulating nature. There are various problems that > seem so overwhelmingly impossible to overcome, yet nature accomplishes > such tasks on a grand scale, infinity so. Is there truly an upper limit > how large reality is? Seems not. Is there a lower limit how small > things are? Look at the biggest thing in physics theory now, M-theory. > Seems there's no limit. Hypothetically lets say there is a limit, even > though there's probably not. Would it resemble raw information as in > memory? Trying to simulate a small area of such raw memory is difficult > enough. Multiply that by infinity. It blows me away!! > > Here's an *attempt* to answer some of your questions. > > > > > > Are all the dimensions length dimensions? > > What is the mathematical and > > physical basis for the spirals coming out of the poles? > > > > I am aware there is a twist in the magnetic field at the poles, as can be > > readily seen when placing a magnet near a CRT screen. But it does > not seem > > to exhibit the number of turns in the drawing. > > > I'm not sure how to answer since the author states time and space in our > physical universe is misunderstood. In the book there's a drawing of > space and time, which is drawn as a sine wave. It shows one unit of > "space factor" to be one wavelength. I believe what they call "space > factor" is the smallest unit of distance in our physical universe. They > continue with, "Time factor energy moving from A to B, or 1/2 wave" > Now I understand that bit of information is most likely totally > meaningless to you. It's only when you juggle thousands of such > statements taken from the book that you begin to perceive a glimpse how > it all makes sense. In a nutshell it's claimed that velocity, time, > speed are 3-dimensional illusions. That what we experience is an > artifact of 3-dimensions. In such 3-dimensions space and time are > split, but when viewed from the 4th and higher dimensions space and time > is connected. For example, when viewing the atom from at least > 4-dimensions they claim the atoms ener
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Temporary energy, which you can retrieve once but have to expend entirely to be able to retrieve it once more. Well, we seem to agree entirely after all. No overunity on a full cycle can be got from the fundamental forces. No PMMs of the first kind can work. As to the origin of this one time energy, it's known IMHO, it's the work performed by the fundamental force, like when you push your car the KE of the car is equal to the work of your pushing force, what else? So the real mystery is the fundamental force which does the work in fact, whether gravitational, electric or magnetic. Now maybe there are ways to pump a lot of energy on a one time basis, e.g. by emptying the oceans slowly into a black hole via a turbine? Wouldn't qualify as renewable of course, but the sun's energy is not really renewable either :) Michel - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Well I am surprised, I thought you were expecting free energy from > such setups. > > > As I've stated many times before, it's *temporary* energy, unless the > two atoms annihilate. What is unknown according to standard model is > where the energy comes from. In the case of two magnets, calling such > energy PE is merely saying, "We don't know where such energy is > stored." Is it stored directly inside the electron in 3-dimensions, > 4-dimensions, 5-dimensions, or perhaps spread out in 4-dimensions, etc. > etc.? > > > > > > If the equations remain the same we are going to find a net energy > gain per cycle E-E' of zero, aren't we? > > > It depends on the situation. I believe energy is always conserved, but > you can indeed rob some of that energy from the two iron atoms. For > example, consider two separated iron atoms. The two iron atoms > accelerate toward each other mostly due to their magnetic attraction. > Such KE is stored in a battery. This results in energy stored in our > battery, but to repeat the process the two iron atoms must be > separated. That's why I call it temporary energy. Such gained energy > is real, but you must give up the energy if you separate the two iron > atoms. Of course it's possible ambient temperature could separate the > two iron atoms for you. :-) > > On the other hand, if one of the iron atoms were made of anti-matter > then the two atoms would annihilate. Therefore you could ***keep*** > then energy saved in the battery as gained from KE. :-) > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Paul > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>> I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this > >> allow you to find E - E' ? > >> > >> > >> The equations remain the same. I'm merely suggesting > >> what we call PE is an existing form > >> of energy. Such PE could exist as electric field in > >> the case of charge, or magnetic field > >> in the case of the magnetic dipole moment, or gravity > >> field in the case of mass. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Paul Lowrance > >> > >> > >> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: Paul > >>> To: > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > >> *standard* physics > >>> > >>>> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>>>> Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than > >>>> once from the coulombic attraction of > >>>> a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating > >> towards > >>>> a fixed equal and opposite charge? I > >>>> mean for example: > >>>>> - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing > >> it > >>>> from 1m away and stopping it 1cm > >>>> away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) > >>>>> - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it > >> back > >>>> 1m away so you can retrieve E again > >>>> from the system? > >>>>> - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? > >>>>> > >>>>> Michel > >>>> > >>>> It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that > >> energy is > >>>> moved. Two oppositely charge and > >>>> attracted objects accelerating toward each other > >>>> cancel each others E-field. So the > >>>> E-field energy is moved to KE. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Paul Lowrance >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
David Thomson wrote: > Hi Paul, > > >> Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane >> slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the >> two vortexes meet. >> http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif > > This is a very nice image. Those are great questions. I'm still in the process of trying to untangle the information since it's from a metaphysic source. Being open-minded I'm studying the source because most of the information meshes very well with my thoughts on reality. I would highly recommend one of their books. At 540 pages, hardback, it's a bargain for $0.25. Yes, that's 25 cents plus $2.50 S&H, tax free. :-) Actually there's another guy on ebay selling it for one penny, but $3.50 S&H. Title: Infinite Concept of Cosmic Creation http://cgi.ebay.com/Infinite-Concept-of-Cosmic-Creation-by-Ernest-L-Nor_W0QQitemZ110065440758QQihZ001QQcategoryZ378QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=%22infinite+concept+of+cosmic+creation%22&category0=&submitSearch=Search Note this book was published in 1956! Roughly 20 years ago I glanced through the book, and truly such information did not mess as well, and therefore went over my head. Last month I glanced through the book and was surprised at how much information made more sense, but left it at that. A few days ago I once again glanced through the book and was shocked at the connections I'm unraveling. Most of such connections were ignited by my recent physics simulation research. Every day I become more amazed ... no, dumb founded how nature (our universe) accomplishes things, at its intelligence. It's nearly impossible to describe unless one delves deep in the attempts of simulating nature. There are various problems that seem so overwhelmingly impossible to overcome, yet nature accomplishes such tasks on a grand scale, infinity so. Is there truly an upper limit how large reality is? Seems not. Is there a lower limit how small things are? Look at the biggest thing in physics theory now, M-theory. Seems there's no limit. Hypothetically lets say there is a limit, even though there's probably not. Would it resemble raw information as in memory? Trying to simulate a small area of such raw memory is difficult enough. Multiply that by infinity. It blows me away!! Here's an *attempt* to answer some of your questions. > Are all the dimensions length dimensions? > What is the mathematical and > physical basis for the spirals coming out of the poles? > > I am aware there is a twist in the magnetic field at the poles, as can be > readily seen when placing a magnet near a CRT screen. But it does not seem > to exhibit the number of turns in the drawing. I'm not sure how to answer since the author states time and space in our physical universe is misunderstood. In the book there's a drawing of space and time, which is drawn as a sine wave. It shows one unit of "space factor" to be one wavelength. I believe what they call "space factor" is the smallest unit of distance in our physical universe. They continue with, "Time factor energy moving from A to B, or 1/2 wave" Now I understand that bit of information is most likely totally meaningless to you. It's only when you juggle thousands of such statements taken from the book that you begin to perceive a glimpse how it all makes sense. In a nutshell it's claimed that velocity, time, speed are 3-dimensional illusions. That what we experience is an artifact of 3-dimensions. In such 3-dimensions space and time are split, but when viewed from the 4th and higher dimensions space and time is connected. For example, when viewing the atom from at least 4-dimensions they claim the atoms energy wave traverses somewhat like a circle, similar to how planets circle the sun, except we are dealing with wave patterns. They claim light from distant stars travels here in an instant. That's just a tidbit from the book, written in 1956. Today there are well acknowledged physicists who adhere to the interpretation that photons do not travel through space, but the actual energy exchange occurs instantly. Have you studied the double slit single electron or single photon experiments? It appears the only theory to predict such experiments by messing with time. The book continually refers to 4th, 5th, and higher dimensional vortexes. Also there's a lot of talk about 2X and 1/2X harmonics, induction, hysteresis, how energy is transferred and split by these methods from the higher dimensions to lower. I could go on and on mentioning various effects describe in the book such as polarity reversals, to EMF bands, to how gravity works. All I can say is that it's very interesting, and it would take such a bizarre theory to explain experiments such as the double slit. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi Paul, > Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane > slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the > two vortexes meet. > http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif This is a very nice image. Are all the dimensions length dimensions? What is the mathematical and physical basis for the spirals coming out of the poles? I am aware there is a twist in the magnetic field at the poles, as can be readily seen when placing a magnet near a CRT screen. But it does not seem to exhibit the number of turns in the drawing. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Terry Blanton wrote: > On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of >> their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what >> vortex image you are referring to. > > > Let's see if I can attach it to a Vortex-l post. Nice. Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the two vortexes meet. http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Well I am surprised, I thought you were expecting free energy from such setups. As I've stated many times before, it's *temporary* energy, unless the two atoms annihilate. What is unknown according to standard model is where the energy comes from. In the case of two magnets, calling such energy PE is merely saying, "We don't know where such energy is stored." Is it stored directly inside the electron in 3-dimensions, 4-dimensions, 5-dimensions, or perhaps spread out in 4-dimensions, etc. etc.? > If the equations remain the same we are going to find a net energy gain per cycle E-E' of zero, aren't we? It depends on the situation. I believe energy is always conserved, but you can indeed rob some of that energy from the two iron atoms. For example, consider two separated iron atoms. The two iron atoms accelerate toward each other mostly due to their magnetic attraction. Such KE is stored in a battery. This results in energy stored in our battery, but to repeat the process the two iron atoms must be separated. That's why I call it temporary energy. Such gained energy is real, but you must give up the energy if you separate the two iron atoms. Of course it's possible ambient temperature could separate the two iron atoms for you. :-) On the other hand, if one of the iron atoms were made of anti-matter then the two atoms would annihilate. Therefore you could ***keep*** then energy saved in the battery as gained from KE. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: Paul > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this >> allow you to find E - E' ? >> >> >> The equations remain the same. I'm merely suggesting >> what we call PE is an existing form >> of energy. Such PE could exist as electric field in >> the case of charge, or magnetic field >> in the case of the magnetic dipole moment, or gravity >> field in the case of mass. >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance >> >> >> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Paul >>> To: >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using >> *standard* physics >>> >>>> Michel Jullian wrote: >>>>> Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than >>>> once from the coulombic attraction of >>>> a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating >> towards >>>> a fixed equal and opposite charge? I >>>> mean for example: >>>>> - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing >> it >>>> from 1m away and stopping it 1cm >>>> away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) >>>>> - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it >> back >>>> 1m away so you can retrieve E again >>>> from the system? >>>>> - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? >>>>> >>>>> Michel >>>> >>>> It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that >> energy is >>>> moved. Two oppositely charge and >>>> attracted objects accelerating toward each other >>>> cancel each others E-field. So the >>>> E-field energy is moved to KE. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi Terry, The image came through. It looks nearly identical to the water vortex I have. I have found that the vortex is caused by the angular momentum of the medium (water in my case) with regard to a unidirectional force (gravity in this case) acting upon it. As the medium spins orthogonal to the gravity, the pressure of the faster moving molecules keeps them suspended in motion, while the molecules at the center have a lower pressure and are attracted to the Earth. If one is to create vortices in any other medium, the mechanics would be the same. To create an Aether vortex is actually quite easy since the Aether already quantifies as a rotating magnetic field. All that is necessary is to contain the rotating magnetic field and apply a unidirectional force through the center of rotation. The unidirectional force could be caused by permanent magnets or electrostatic electrodes placed above and below the vortex. If my assumptions are correct, the vorticity can be expressed as a unit equal to kg^2 * m^3 / sec^3. This would mean that vorticity is equal to momentum times energy. In the Aether Physics Model, this is written as vort = h * forc vort = momt * enrg Increasing either the angular momentum or the unidirectional force increases the vorticity. I still have a lot of work to do with the math, but I am making headway. Right now I'm building a wireless power transmitter, which is a scaled model of Tesla's Wardencliffe system, so my time is limited. Dave > -Original Message- > From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:53 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of > > their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what > > vortex image you are referring to. > > > Let's see if I can attach it to a Vortex-l post. > > Terry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what vortex image you are referring to. Let's see if I can attach it to a Vortex-l post. Terry <>
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Terry Blanton wrote: > On 1/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Do you have a link to the rexresearch vortex image? > > Oh, I'm sorry. I thought everyone ou true believer knew about RR :-) > > http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm > > It's really kewl! > > Terry I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what vortex image you are referring to. Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Well I am surprised, I thought you were expecting free energy from such setups. If the equations remain the same we are going to find a net energy gain per cycle E-E' of zero, aren't we? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this > allow you to find E - E' ? > > > The equations remain the same. I'm merely suggesting > what we call PE is an existing form > of energy. Such PE could exist as electric field in > the case of charge, or magnetic field > in the case of the magnetic dipole moment, or gravity > field in the case of mass. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Paul > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>> Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than > >> once from the coulombic attraction of > >> a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating > towards > >> a fixed equal and opposite charge? I > >> mean for example: > >>> - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing > it > >> from 1m away and stopping it 1cm > >> away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) > >>> - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it > back > >> 1m away so you can retrieve E again > >> from the system? > >>> - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? > >>> > >>> Michel > >> > >> > >> It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that > energy is > >> moved. Two oppositely charge and > >> attracted objects accelerating toward each other > >> cancel each others E-field. So the > >> E-field energy is moved to KE. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Paul Lowrance > > > > > > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do you have a link to the rexresearch vortex image? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought everyone ou true believer knew about RR :-) http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm It's really kewl! Terry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Terry Blanton wrote: > On 1/30/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thanks! That's a powerful theory. I'll have to study >> it when time permits. You forgot >> part 2 --> >> >> http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart2.pdf > > Paul, > > I have read it about 5 times now and am beginning to grasp the > meaning. Look at the image of the vortex on the rexresearch webpage > and imagine that the vortex image is an electron rotating in 3D space > on the downward sprial and upward in the orthogonal space. Do you have a link to the rexresearch vortex image? Paul
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/30/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks! That's a powerful theory. I'll have to study it when time permits. You forgot part 2 --> http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart2.pdf Paul, I have read it about 5 times now and am beginning to grasp the meaning. Look at the image of the vortex on the rexresearch webpage and imagine that the vortex image is an electron rotating in 3D space on the downward sprial and upward in the orthogonal space. You might imagine the electron as a pump between spaces 1-3 D (down) and 4-6 D (up). This would explain why the fermion has a non-integer spin in 3D space. It takes 720 degrees of rotation to return to the starting point -- hence a spin of 1/2. I'm not quite there; but, I think I am close. :-) Terry PS I did not forget Hotson2. It's simply too heretical at this time.
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Terry Blanton wrote: > On 1/30/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The million-dollar >> question is regarding charged particles >> such as the electron. So far we can only speculate >> where the electrons energy exists or >> what sustains the electron. Indeed many QM physicist >> claim the electron has no size as we >> understand. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. >> Perhaps the energy is found in a higher >> dimension. We know it requires energy to create the >> electron. Therefore, such energy must >> exist. > > I have intentionally stayed out of this knowing that ultimately > someone would reach this point. Now, take the time to read DL > Hotson's analysis of PAM Dirac's famous energy equation: > > http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart1.pdf > > where you will find that the energy comes from an orthogonal space > which is a part of our universe but which we cannot sense directly. Thanks! That's a powerful theory. I'll have to study it when time permits. You forgot part 2 --> http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart2.pdf Regards, Paul Lowrance We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/30/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The million-dollar question is regarding charged particles such as the electron. So far we can only speculate where the electrons energy exists or what sustains the electron. Indeed many QM physicist claim the electron has no size as we understand. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. Perhaps the energy is found in a higher dimension. We know it requires energy to create the electron. Therefore, such energy must exist. I have intentionally stayed out of this knowing that ultimately someone would reach this point. Now, take the time to read DL Hotson's analysis of PAM Dirac's famous energy equation: http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart1.pdf where you will find that the energy comes from an orthogonal space which is a part of our universe but which we cannot sense directly. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Oh I think I understand at last your reasoning: in this case in your view energy is conserved > because the field energy decreases while the kinetic energy increases. Whereas in the case > of the two permanent magnets _both_ the field energy and the kinetic energy increase, so you > think there is a net gain of energy. Do I interpret correctly your line of thought? Regarding the electro-magnet we can precisely trace where such energy comes from, as described in earlier posts. The million-dollar question is regarding charged particles such as the electron. So far we can only speculate where the electrons energy exists or what sustains the electron. Indeed many QM physicist claim the electron has no size as we understand. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. Perhaps the energy is found in a higher dimension. We know it requires energy to create the electron. Therefore, such energy must exist. Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: Michel Jullian > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:07 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this allow you to find E - E' ? >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: Paul >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >> >> >>> Michel Jullian wrote: >>>> Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than >>> once from the coulombic attraction of >>> a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards >>> a fixed equal and opposite charge? I >>> mean for example: >>>> - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it >>> from 1m away and stopping it 1cm >>> away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) >>>> - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it back >>> 1m away so you can retrieve E again >>> from the system? >>>> - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? >>>> >>>> Michel >>> >>> >>> It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that energy is >>> moved. Two oppositely charge and >>> attracted objects accelerating toward each other >>> cancel each others E-field. So the >>> E-field energy is moved to KE. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Paul Lowrance Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this allow you to find E - E' ? The equations remain the same. I'm merely suggesting what we call PE is an existing form of energy. Such PE could exist as electric field in the case of charge, or magnetic field in the case of the magnetic dipole moment, or gravity field in the case of mass. Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: Paul > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than >> once from the coulombic attraction of >> a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards >> a fixed equal and opposite charge? I >> mean for example: >>> - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it >> from 1m away and stopping it 1cm >> away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) >>> - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it back >> 1m away so you can retrieve E again >> from the system? >>> - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? >>> >>> Michel >> >> >> It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that energy is >> moved. Two oppositely charge and >> attracted objects accelerating toward each other >> cancel each others E-field. So the >> E-field energy is moved to KE. >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Oh I think I understand at last your reasoning: in this case in your view energy is conserved because the field energy decreases while the kinetic energy increases. Whereas in the case of the two permanent magnets _both_ the field energy and the kinetic energy increase, so you think there is a net gain of energy. Do I interpret correctly your line of thought? Michel - Original Message - From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this allow you to find E - E' ? > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >> > Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than >> once from the coulombic attraction of >> a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards >> a fixed equal and opposite charge? I >> mean for example: >> > >> > - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it >> from 1m away and stopping it 1cm >> away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) >> > >> > - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it back >> 1m away so you can retrieve E again >> from the system? >> > >> > - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? >> > >> > Michel >> >> >> >> It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that energy is >> moved. Two oppositely charge and >> attracted objects accelerating toward each other >> cancel each others E-field. So the >> E-field energy is moved to KE. >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance >> >> >> >> >> Never Miss an Email >> Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail >> >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
What I don't know is whether the gained kinetic energy is equal to the energy you put into the loop to establish the magnetic field, but this may be true I just haven't worked it out. What if both magnets are permanent ones, you don't have to put energy in do you? Michel - Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > On 1/30/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply the energy you put >> into the loop to >> > establish the magnetic field. >> >> I don't know, do we have to put energy into a positive charge so that it >> gets attracted to a negative charge? (we must not forget that the magnetic >> force from a moving charged particle is purely electric in that particle's >> rest frame) > > > Ever heard of self inductance? > When trying to establish a current the current forms a magnetic field, as > the magnetic is time varying from nothing to the full level of current in > the loop, this creates an emf in the loop which opposes the voltage being > applied. (unless you designed the coil to not create a magnetic field) > > So while it might be a constant current and no energy is requires to > maintain the current, you still had to put energy in to establish the field. > > This is pretty freaking basic stuff! > > Michel >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >> >> >> > The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage in >> the >> > loop, as .0001 volts >> > induced in the opposite direction is enough to reverse the current >> direction >> > in the SC loop the magnet will basically not be attracted at all. >> > Except of course for the fact that this would collapse the magnetic >> field of >> > the loop, so this helps keep the current flowing. >> > >> > So what will occur is a hand off, the voltage induced by the magnet will >> be >> > equal to the voltage induced by the collapsing magnetic field, so the >> > magnetic field is slowly collapsed, there is no more current in the loop >> and >> > the magnet has gained KE. >> > >> > Where did this come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to >> > establish the magnetic field. (It might be a superconductor so it takes >> no >> > energy to maintain a magnetic field but it does take energy to establish >> > one) >> > >> > In this case energy is conserved, and energy is always conserved unless >> you >> > use the aether, space time to change the rules. >> > >> > >> > On 1/29/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies >> things >> >> somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the >> >> non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer >> to the >> >> electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. >> >> >> >> 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current >> >> through the loop. >> >> >> >> 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, constant current so >> >> zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we >> can >> >> connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without >> >> stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will >> remain >> >> zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. >> >> >> >> 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and >> >> accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be >> gained, >> >> but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? >> >> >> >> Michel >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: >> >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >> >> >>
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/30/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to > establish the magnetic field. I don't know, do we have to put energy into a positive charge so that it gets attracted to a negative charge? (we must not forget that the magnetic force from a moving charged particle is purely electric in that particle's rest frame) Ever heard of self inductance? When trying to establish a current the current forms a magnetic field, as the magnetic is time varying from nothing to the full level of current in the loop, this creates an emf in the loop which opposes the voltage being applied. (unless you designed the coil to not create a magnetic field) So while it might be a constant current and no energy is requires to maintain the current, you still had to put energy in to establish the field. This is pretty freaking basic stuff! Michel - Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage in the > loop, as .0001 volts > induced in the opposite direction is enough to reverse the current direction > in the SC loop the magnet will basically not be attracted at all. > Except of course for the fact that this would collapse the magnetic field of > the loop, so this helps keep the current flowing. > > So what will occur is a hand off, the voltage induced by the magnet will be > equal to the voltage induced by the collapsing magnetic field, so the > magnetic field is slowly collapsed, there is no more current in the loop and > the magnet has gained KE. > > Where did this come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to > establish the magnetic field. (It might be a superconductor so it takes no > energy to maintain a magnetic field but it does take energy to establish > one) > > In this case energy is conserved, and energy is always conserved unless you > use the aether, space time to change the rules. > > > On 1/29/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies things >> somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the >> non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the >> electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. >> >> 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current >> through the loop. >> >> 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, constant current so >> zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we can >> connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without >> stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will remain >> zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. >> >> 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and >> accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, >> but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >> >> >> > Michel Jullian wrote: >> > > I agree with all the interesting comments below, >> > both Stephen's and yours, relative to >> > the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes >> > it non purely inductive to some >> > extent when current varies with time. >> > > >> > > However, may I remind you that my initial >> > statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, >> > simply said that "keeping the current going" in an >> > isolated non-resistive current loop >> > would not consume energy. >> > > In which case i is constant in time, so the >> > frequency f of the signal is zero, so the >> > wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation >> > resistance: >> > > >> > > Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the >> > circular loop) is zero. >> > > >> > > So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. >> > This still doesn't make my loop consume >> > energy. >> > >> > >> > >> > Your Quote, >> > --- >> > "You keep telling u
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this allow you to find E - E' ? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than > once from the coulombic attraction of > a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards > a fixed equal and opposite charge? I > mean for example: > > > > - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it > from 1m away and stopping it 1cm > away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) > > > > - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it back > 1m away so you can retrieve E again > from the system? > > > > - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? > > > > Michel > > > > It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that energy is > moved. Two oppositely charge and > attracted objects accelerating toward each other > cancel each others E-field. So the > E-field energy is moved to KE. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > Never Miss an Email > Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! > http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than once from the coulombic attraction of a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards a fixed equal and opposite charge? I mean for example: > > - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it from 1m away and stopping it 1cm away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) > > - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it back 1m away so you can retrieve E again from the system? > > - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? > > Michel It's the same as an electro-magnetic in that energy is moved. Two oppositely charge and attracted objects accelerating toward each other cancel each others E-field. So the E-field energy is moved to KE. Regards, Paul Lowrance Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than once from the coulombic attraction of a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards a fixed equal and opposite charge? I mean for example: - How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it from 1m away and stopping it 1cm away? (say converting 100% of it's KE to heat) - Which energy E' must you expend to bring it back 1m away so you can retrieve E again from the system? - What's the net energy E - E' pumped per cycle? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Let's say from a falling weight, if that's ok with > you. > > > Are we going back to gravity? We know less about > gravity than magnetic & electric fields. > Perhaps when we are able to create an > electro-gravity coil we'll better understand > gravity. Until then I predict it will require energy > to generate a gravity field from such > an electro-gravity coil. :-) > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: Paul > > To: > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>> Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can > you > >> draw energy more than once from > >> this, or from a falling weight? > >> > >> > >> From what-- magnetic dipole moment, charged space, > or > >> what? If two magnetically > >> attracted current loops move closer then energy is > >> moved away from the source that > >> *sustains* the current loops. From there it > depends > >> if the current loop decreases in > >> current or they move apart. That's why I've > stated > >> it's *temporary* energy in terms of > >> the electron spin ***unless*** something > annihilates > >> the electron. If the electron is > >> annihilated after gaining such KE due to > acceleration > >> then it's permanent energy. :-) > >> > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Paul Lowrance > > > > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you draw energy more than once > from this, or from a falling weight? > > Michel You could periodically generate power from a bodies weight, if you could electrically modulate the body's weight while it is sitting on a spring, or hanging from a spring. If the electric power needed is less than the mechanical power generated by the spring-weight system then it is a "free energy" device. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Let's say from a falling weight, if that's ok with you. Are we going back to gravity? We know less about gravity than magnetic & electric fields. Perhaps when we are able to create an electro-gravity coil we'll better understand gravity. Until then I predict it will require energy to generate a gravity field from such an electro-gravity coil. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: Paul > To: > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you >> draw energy more than once from >> this, or from a falling weight? >> >> >> From what-- magnetic dipole moment, charged space, or >> what? If two magnetically >> attracted current loops move closer then energy is >> moved away from the source that >> *sustains* the current loops. From there it depends >> if the current loop decreases in >> current or they move apart. That's why I've stated >> it's *temporary* energy in terms of >> the electron spin ***unless*** something annihilates >> the electron. If the electron is >> annihilated after gaining such KE due to acceleration >> then it's permanent energy. :-) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Let's say from a falling weight, if that's ok with you. Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you > draw energy more than once from > this, or from a falling weight? > > > From what-- magnetic dipole moment, charged space, or > what? If two magnetically > attracted current loops move closer then energy is > moved away from the source that > *sustains* the current loops. From there it depends > if the current loop decreases in > current or they move apart. That's why I've stated > it's *temporary* energy in terms of > the electron spin ***unless*** something annihilates > the electron. If the electron is > annihilated after gaining such KE due to acceleration > then it's permanent energy. :-) > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Paul > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>>> Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? > Simply > >> the energy you put into the loop to > >>>> establish the magnetic field. > >>> I don't know, do we have to put energy into a > >> positive charge so that it gets attracted > >> to a negative charge? > >> > >> > >> > >> According to physics, yes. If space is charge > then > >> that is a certain amount of energy. > >> Charged particles were created. They just didn't > >> magically appear. A positive and negative > >> charged particle can be created from two photon > beams. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Paul > > > > > > Never miss an email again! > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you draw energy more than once from this, or from a falling weight? From what-- magnetic dipole moment, charged space, or what? If two magnetically attracted current loops move closer then energy is moved away from the source that *sustains* the current loops. From there it depends if the current loop decreases in current or they move apart. That's why I've stated it's *temporary* energy in terms of the electron spin ***unless*** something annihilates the electron. If the electron is annihilated after gaining such KE due to acceleration then it's permanent energy. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: Paul >> Michel Jullian wrote: Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply >> the energy you put into the loop to establish the magnetic field. >>> I don't know, do we have to put energy into a >> positive charge so that it gets attracted >> to a negative charge? >> >> >> >> According to physics, yes. If space is charge then >> that is a certain amount of energy. >> Charged particles were created. They just didn't >> magically appear. A positive and negative >> charged particle can be created from two photon beams. >> >> >> >> >> Paul Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you draw energy more than once from this, or from a falling weight? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply > the energy you put into the loop to > >> establish the magnetic field. > > > > I don't know, do we have to put energy into a > positive charge so that it gets attracted > to a negative charge? > > > > According to physics, yes. If space is charge then > that is a certain amount of energy. > Charged particles were created. They just didn't > magically appear. A positive and negative > charged particle can be created from two photon beams. > > > > > Paul > > > > > Never miss an email again! > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: >> Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to >> establish the magnetic field. > > I don't know, do we have to put energy into a positive charge so that it gets attracted to a negative charge? According to physics, yes. If space is charge then that is a certain amount of energy. Charged particles were created. They just didn't magically appear. A positive and negative charged particle can be created from two photon beams. Paul Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > How can you produce an opposing voltage in a _closed_ non-resistive current loop? Michel, lol, you are tying yourself up in a knot something terrible. A current loop is not closed. It seems you understood this, "It should indeed be attracted and accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained" If the electro-magnet is magnetically attracted to the current loop then the current loop is an open magnetic field, surprise. This is too funny, a current loop by itself is not closed. If you are talking about a toroid, where the magnetic field is closed then there will be no magnetic attraction. This is getting silly. Perhaps someone is simply trying to waste my research time. Heavens forbid, we wouldn't want someone giving the world "free energy." That could temporarily cause world chaos economically and result in a beautiful and stabilized system. Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> Your new experiment (attraction rather than >> alignment) simplifies things somehow (no >> torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to >> the non-wire-resistive loop shall >> we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the >> electron orbit or spin counterpart you are >> comparing it to. >>> 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a >> constant current through the loop. >>> 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, >> >> >> I would question that such a thing is even >> theoretically possible for an electro-magnet. >> Perhaps it is possible in another reality where light >> travels instantly and hence no far >> field. Or perhaps if the electro-magnets entire closed >> loop is a 1-dimensional point, but >> how do you have a closed "loop" with zero length. At >> best it could be another reality, >> but not our reality. >> >> >> >>> constant current so zero auto-induced voltage >> -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This >> means we can connect the loop back on itself and >> remove the current source without >> stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop >> voltage will remain zero for ever, >> and define this as time zero for the energy balance. >>> 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed >> be attracted and accelerated towards >> the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, >> but how could the energy be drawn >> from the loop if voltage is zero? >> >> >> Michel, for the most part the amount of energy >> contained in the current loop depends on >> its inductance and current. That is what maintains the >> current. The current decay depends >> on resistance, which you say is zero (no wire or >> radiation resistance). So in your example >> the current would remain constant if left alone. >> There are other minor factors, but by >> far that's the main factor. >> >> As the magnet accelerates (angularly or linearly) to >> the current loop it produces an >> opposing voltage in such current loop, which decreases >> the current loops current. During >> that span of time such opposing voltage is >> "resistance" on the current loop, as indeed it >> removes energy from the current loop. >> >> If the two objects continue to accelerate long enough >> then the current loops current will >> decay to zero amps. In such a case the two objects are >> no longer magnetically attracted, >> but they will continue to move depending how much >> momentum is left, which will generate >> negative current in the current loop. This will cause >> the two objects to repel, and you >> end up with two objects oscillating back and forth >> *until* the energy is dissipated, which >> will happen. >> >> During each oscillation the electro-magnet could use >> such gain KE from the current loop as >> it so desires. It could store such energy in a battery >> for example, in which case the two >> objects would quickly slow down until all the energy >> is removed from the current loop. >> The longest the two objects could oscillate would >> depend how much energy is radiated >> simply from the two objects moving in space. A moving >> magnetic field generates radiation. >> >> >> So as you can see, energy is indeed moved from one >> source to the next at the moment it is >> required. No magical PE required. :-) >> >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
How can you produce an opposing voltage in a _closed_ non-resistive current loop? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Your new experiment (attraction rather than > alignment) simplifies things somehow (no > torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to > the non-wire-resistive loop shall > we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the > electron orbit or spin counterpart you are > comparing it to. > > > > 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a > constant current through the loop. > > > > 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, > > > > I would question that such a thing is even > theoretically possible for an electro-magnet. > Perhaps it is possible in another reality where light > travels instantly and hence no far > field. Or perhaps if the electro-magnets entire closed > loop is a 1-dimensional point, but > how do you have a closed "loop" with zero length. At > best it could be another reality, > but not our reality. > > > > > constant current so zero auto-induced voltage > -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This > means we can connect the loop back on itself and > remove the current source without > stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop > voltage will remain zero for ever, > and define this as time zero for the energy balance. > > > > 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed > be attracted and accelerated towards > the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, > but how could the energy be drawn > from the loop if voltage is zero? > > > Michel, for the most part the amount of energy > contained in the current loop depends on > its inductance and current. That is what maintains the > current. The current decay depends > on resistance, which you say is zero (no wire or > radiation resistance). So in your example > the current would remain constant if left alone. > There are other minor factors, but by > far that's the main factor. > > As the magnet accelerates (angularly or linearly) to > the current loop it produces an > opposing voltage in such current loop, which decreases > the current loops current. During > that span of time such opposing voltage is > "resistance" on the current loop, as indeed it > removes energy from the current loop. > > If the two objects continue to accelerate long enough > then the current loops current will > decay to zero amps. In such a case the two objects are > no longer magnetically attracted, > but they will continue to move depending how much > momentum is left, which will generate > negative current in the current loop. This will cause > the two objects to repel, and you > end up with two objects oscillating back and forth > *until* the energy is dissipated, which > will happen. > > During each oscillation the electro-magnet could use > such gain KE from the current loop as > it so desires. It could store such energy in a battery > for example, in which case the two > objects would quickly slow down until all the energy > is removed from the current loop. > The longest the two objects could oscillate would > depend how much energy is radiated > simply from the two objects moving in space. A moving > magnetic field generates radiation. > > > So as you can see, energy is indeed moved from one > source to the next at the moment it is > required. No magical PE required. :-) > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time > with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies things somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. > > 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current through the loop. > > 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, I would question that such a thing is even theoretically possible for an electro-magnet. Perhaps it is possible in another reality where light travels instantly and hence no far field. Or perhaps if the electro-magnets entire closed loop is a 1-dimensional point, but how do you have a closed "loop" with zero length. At best it could be another reality, but not our reality. > constant current so zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we can connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will remain zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. > > 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? Michel, for the most part the amount of energy contained in the current loop depends on its inductance and current. That is what maintains the current. The current decay depends on resistance, which you say is zero (no wire or radiation resistance). So in your example the current would remain constant if left alone. There are other minor factors, but by far that's the main factor. As the magnet accelerates (angularly or linearly) to the current loop it produces an opposing voltage in such current loop, which decreases the current loops current. During that span of time such opposing voltage is "resistance" on the current loop, as indeed it removes energy from the current loop. If the two objects continue to accelerate long enough then the current loops current will decay to zero amps. In such a case the two objects are no longer magnetically attracted, but they will continue to move depending how much momentum is left, which will generate negative current in the current loop. This will cause the two objects to repel, and you end up with two objects oscillating back and forth *until* the energy is dissipated, which will happen. During each oscillation the electro-magnet could use such gain KE from the current loop as it so desires. It could store such energy in a battery for example, in which case the two objects would quickly slow down until all the energy is removed from the current loop. The longest the two objects could oscillate would depend how much energy is radiated simply from the two objects moving in space. A moving magnetic field generates radiation. So as you can see, energy is indeed moved from one source to the next at the moment it is required. No magical PE required. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
> Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply the energy you put into the > loop to > establish the magnetic field. I don't know, do we have to put energy into a positive charge so that it gets attracted to a negative charge? (we must not forget that the magnetic force from a moving charged particle is purely electric in that particle's rest frame) Michel - Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage in the > loop, as .0001 volts > induced in the opposite direction is enough to reverse the current direction > in the SC loop the magnet will basically not be attracted at all. > Except of course for the fact that this would collapse the magnetic field of > the loop, so this helps keep the current flowing. > > So what will occur is a hand off, the voltage induced by the magnet will be > equal to the voltage induced by the collapsing magnetic field, so the > magnetic field is slowly collapsed, there is no more current in the loop and > the magnet has gained KE. > > Where did this come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to > establish the magnetic field. (It might be a superconductor so it takes no > energy to maintain a magnetic field but it does take energy to establish > one) > > In this case energy is conserved, and energy is always conserved unless you > use the aether, space time to change the rules. > > > On 1/29/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies things >> somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the >> non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the >> electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. >> >> 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current >> through the loop. >> >> 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, constant current so >> zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we can >> connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without >> stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will remain >> zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. >> >> 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and >> accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, >> but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >> >> >> > Michel Jullian wrote: >> > > I agree with all the interesting comments below, >> > both Stephen's and yours, relative to >> > the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes >> > it non purely inductive to some >> > extent when current varies with time. >> > > >> > > However, may I remind you that my initial >> > statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, >> > simply said that "keeping the current going" in an >> > isolated non-resistive current loop >> > would not consume energy. >> > > In which case i is constant in time, so the >> > frequency f of the signal is zero, so the >> > wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation >> > resistance: >> > > >> > > Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the >> > circular loop) is zero. >> > > >> > > So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. >> > This still doesn't make my loop consume >> > energy. >> > >> > >> > >> > Your Quote, >> > --- >> > "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, >> > true but that's only because the wires >> > are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop would not >> > consume any energy to keep the >> > current going." >> > --- >> > >> > >> > LOL ... this is hopeless. Again --> You state the >> > only consumed energy in an >> > electro-magnetic is because the wires are resistive. >> > Besides the fact you missed other >> > factors such as radiation resistance lets focus on the >> > fact that a magnet attracted and >> > accelerating toward the wire resistive current loop >> > would *indeed* induce an opposing >> > voltage, which would consume energy. The gained KE >> > comes from the wire resistive current loop. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > Paul Lowrance >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. >> > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. >> > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html >> > >> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage in the loop, as .0001 volts induced in the opposite direction is enough to reverse the current direction in the SC loop the magnet will basically not be attracted at all. Except of course for the fact that this would collapse the magnetic field of the loop, so this helps keep the current flowing. So what will occur is a hand off, the voltage induced by the magnet will be equal to the voltage induced by the collapsing magnetic field, so the magnetic field is slowly collapsed, there is no more current in the loop and the magnet has gained KE. Where did this come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to establish the magnetic field. (It might be a superconductor so it takes no energy to maintain a magnetic field but it does take energy to establish one) In this case energy is conserved, and energy is always conserved unless you use the aether, space time to change the rules. On 1/29/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies things somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current through the loop. 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, constant current so zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we can connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will remain zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > I agree with all the interesting comments below, > both Stephen's and yours, relative to > the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes > it non purely inductive to some > extent when current varies with time. > > > > However, may I remind you that my initial > statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, > simply said that "keeping the current going" in an > isolated non-resistive current loop > would not consume energy. > > In which case i is constant in time, so the > frequency f of the signal is zero, so the > wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation > resistance: > > > > Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the > circular loop) is zero. > > > > So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. > This still doesn't make my loop consume > energy. > > > > Your Quote, > --- > "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, > true but that's only because the wires > are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop would not > consume any energy to keep the > current going." > --- > > > LOL ... this is hopeless. Again --> You state the > only consumed energy in an > electro-magnetic is because the wires are resistive. > Besides the fact you missed other > factors such as radiation resistance lets focus on the > fact that a magnet attracted and > accelerating toward the wire resistive current loop > would *indeed* induce an opposing > voltage, which would consume energy. The gained KE > comes from the wire resistive current loop. > > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies things somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current through the loop. 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, constant current so zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we can connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will remain zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > I agree with all the interesting comments below, > both Stephen's and yours, relative to > the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes > it non purely inductive to some > extent when current varies with time. > > > > However, may I remind you that my initial > statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, > simply said that "keeping the current going" in an > isolated non-resistive current loop > would not consume energy. > > In which case i is constant in time, so the > frequency f of the signal is zero, so the > wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation > resistance: > > > > Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the > circular loop) is zero. > > > > So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. > This still doesn't make my loop consume > energy. > > > > Your Quote, > --- > "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, > true but that's only because the wires > are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop would not > consume any energy to keep the > current going." > --- > > > LOL ... this is hopeless. Again --> You state the > only consumed energy in an > electro-magnetic is because the wires are resistive. > Besides the fact you missed other > factors such as radiation resistance lets focus on the > fact that a magnet attracted and > accelerating toward the wire resistive current loop > would *indeed* induce an opposing > voltage, which would consume energy. The gained KE > comes from the wire resistive current loop. > > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > I agree with all the interesting comments below, both Stephen's and yours, relative to the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes it non purely inductive to some extent when current varies with time. > > However, may I remind you that my initial statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, simply said that "keeping the current going" in an isolated non-resistive current loop would not consume energy. > In which case i is constant in time, so the frequency f of the signal is zero, so the wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation resistance: > > Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the circular loop) is zero. > > So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. This still doesn't make my loop consume energy. Your Quote, --- "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the wires are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going." --- LOL ... this is hopeless. Again --> You state the only consumed energy in an electro-magnetic is because the wires are resistive. Besides the fact you missed other factors such as radiation resistance lets focus on the fact that a magnet attracted and accelerating toward the wire resistive current loop would *indeed* induce an opposing voltage, which would consume energy. The gained KE comes from the wire resistive current loop. Regards, Paul Lowrance Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
I agree with all the interesting comments below, both Stephen's and yours, relative to the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes it non purely inductive to some extent when current varies with time. However, may I remind you that my initial statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, simply said that "keeping the current going" in an isolated non-resistive current loop would not consume energy. In which case i is constant in time, so the frequency f of the signal is zero, so the wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation resistance: Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the circular loop) is zero. So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. This still doesn't make my loop consume energy. However this discussion on radiation makes me think there is indeed one thing I have overlooked and which will make my constant-current loop consume energy, it's synchrotron radiation. You know, that thing which should make electrons lose energy while orbiting their nucleus. I doubt it can be significant at the low speed of electrons in wires though. All this goes to show that there is more than meets the eye in a "simple" current loop. BTW, wrt your initial problem with the energy balance of aligning magnetic dipoles, title of this thread, if you object to the use of magnetic potential energy you could, equivalently, consider the work of the magnetic torque as your source of energy. It should be equal to the increase in kinetic energy plus any radiated energy to verify coe. Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > [snip] > > However, there's something here that bugs > > me whenever I think about this stuff. > > > > Michel Jullian wrote: > > > >> Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully > recoverable actually > > > > Yes, of course, v = -L dI/dt and what goes in must > come out. > > > > But as someone mentioned, when you turn on the > power an EM wave travels > > out from the inductor at C, carrying energy. How's > that energy get back > > to the inductor again when we open the circuit? If > it doesn't, then > > that formula, v = -L dI/dt, must not be quite > correct. > > > The fundamental equation appears correct. What is > commonly misunderstood is that > electro-magnets cannot be purely inductive due to > radiation resistance. There's wire > resistance, and there's radiation resistance. > > > > > > Related issue: If the inductor is part of a > transformer the "other > > coil" absorbs energy and that doesn't come back out > (or, rather, it > > comes out the "other side" of the transformer). > But if we separate the > > primary and the secondary coils by significant > distance, the primary > > doesn't know for a long time that the secondary > absorbed some of the > > energy -- so how does it know it shouldn't give > back the full complement > > of energy to the power supply during the second > half of the cycle? > > > In such a case energy from the primary is radiated. > This causes radiation resistance on > the primary coil. It would be the goal of the > secondary to capture as much radiation as > possible. > > > > > > > This is particular interesting with regard to an > antenna, which seems > > like it's just a transformer with a lot of distance > between primary and > > secondary. An antenna is basically just an ideal > inductor, yet it > > radiates away power that doesn't come back out at > the terminals. > > > Radiation resistance. > > > > > > What's the difference between an antenna and a > simple coil, _aside_ from > > the fact that we "think about" an antenna as > broadcast device and a coil > > as an energy storage device? > > > As you know, coil designers try to eliminate as much > radiation resistance as possible. > Antennas are designed to do the opposite. Both have > inductance and radiation resistance. > > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > Bored stiff? Loosen up... > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. > http://games.yahoo.com/games/front >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip] > However, there's something here that bugs > me whenever I think about this stuff. > > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully recoverable actually > > Yes, of course, v = -L dI/dt and what goes in must come out. > > But as someone mentioned, when you turn on the power an EM wave travels > out from the inductor at C, carrying energy. How's that energy get back > to the inductor again when we open the circuit? If it doesn't, then > that formula, v = -L dI/dt, must not be quite correct. The fundamental equation appears correct. What is commonly misunderstood is that electro-magnets cannot be purely inductive due to radiation resistance. There's wire resistance, and there's radiation resistance. > Related issue: If the inductor is part of a transformer the "other > coil" absorbs energy and that doesn't come back out (or, rather, it > comes out the "other side" of the transformer). But if we separate the > primary and the secondary coils by significant distance, the primary > doesn't know for a long time that the secondary absorbed some of the > energy -- so how does it know it shouldn't give back the full complement > of energy to the power supply during the second half of the cycle? In such a case energy from the primary is radiated. This causes radiation resistance on the primary coil. It would be the goal of the secondary to capture as much radiation as possible. > This is particular interesting with regard to an antenna, which seems > like it's just a transformer with a lot of distance between primary and > secondary. An antenna is basically just an ideal inductor, yet it > radiates away power that doesn't come back out at the terminals. Radiation resistance. > What's the difference between an antenna and a simple coil, _aside_ from > the fact that we "think about" an antenna as broadcast device and a coil > as an energy storage device? As you know, coil designers try to eliminate as much radiation resistance as possible. Antennas are designed to do the opposite. Both have inductance and radiation resistance. Regards, Paul Lowrance Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Indeed you're right there are several universes, the one that works as you believe, plus the real one lol :) According to MWI all universes are real. :-) I read of a poll that revealed most top physicists believe in MWI, including Stephen Hawking. > Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully recoverable actually, as you would know if you had done any switchmode power converter design. Again, reactance stores energy, resistance consumes it. > > Over and out, enjoy your simulations :) I never said energy in a pure inductor is not recoverable. An electro-magnet cannot be purely inductive. Do you agree? Being evasive to save face is not healthy. You went from --> #1 Trying to prove two accelerating attracted electro-magnets consumes no energy. To --> #2 Trying to prove the only energy consumed in an electro-magnet is due to "wire resistance." To --> #3 A pure inductor has no energy loss. There can be no di/dt in an electro-magnet without causing a far field. Electro-magnets do not recover far field energy. Do you agree? Two accelerating attracted electro-magnets moves energy from the electro-magnets current source to KE. Do you agree? Regards, Paul Lowrance Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
You folks are mostly arguing definitions at this point IMHO and I don't want to get involved in that. However, there's something here that bugs me whenever I think about this stuff. Michel Jullian wrote: Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully recoverable actually Yes, of course, v = -L dI/dt and what goes in must come out. But as someone mentioned, when you turn on the power an EM wave travels out from the inductor at C, carrying energy. How's that energy get back to the inductor again when we open the circuit? If it doesn't, then that formula, v = -L dI/dt, must not be quite correct. Related issue: If the inductor is part of a transformer the "other coil" absorbs energy and that doesn't come back out (or, rather, it comes out the "other side" of the transformer). But if we separate the primary and the secondary coils by significant distance, the primary doesn't know for a long time that the secondary absorbed some of the energy -- so how does it know it shouldn't give back the full complement of energy to the power supply during the second half of the cycle? This is particular interesting with regard to an antenna, which seems like it's just a transformer with a lot of distance between primary and secondary. An antenna is basically just an ideal inductor, yet it radiates away power that doesn't come back out at the terminals. What's the difference between an antenna and a simple coil, _aside_ from the fact that we "think about" an antenna as broadcast device and a coil as an energy storage device? Maybe the answer is obvious if you work through the math but antenna theory is messy enough that "working through the math" is a nontrivial exercise...
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Indeed you're right there are several universes, the one that works as you believe, plus the real one lol :) Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully recoverable actually, as you would know if you had done any switchmode power converter design. Again, reactance stores energy, resistance consumes it. Over and out, enjoy your simulations :) Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > You insist, very aggressively, that my statement > was incorrect even if I meant one > electro-magnet. Well the case is simple enough, let's > work it out. If it's non-resistive > it's purely inductive, so v=-L*di/dt right? So if > current i is constant, voltage v is > zero, therefore consumed power i*v is zero, and so is > consumed energy i*v*t. So as I said, > "a non-resistive current loop would not consume any > energy to keep the current going". > > > > Now this may come as an even bigger surprise to > you, but a pure inductance is in fact > unable to consume _any energy at all_, even if current > is not constant. It can store > energy (1/2*L*i^2), it can transfer energy when mutual > inductance is at play, but it just > can't consume any. Resistance can consume energy, > reactance can't, any textbook will tell > you that. > > > > You still do not see it. Back to your quote, "You > keep telling us electromagnets consume > energy, true but that's ***ONLY*** because the wires > are resistive." Lets consider an > electro-magnet that has no wire resistance. We > energize the coil, which moves energy from > the battery to the near and far field. Right off the > bat we have unrecoverable energy > lost in the far field ... with no wire resistance. > :-))) Now to continue, near the > electro-magnet is another electro-magnet. This > electro-magnet accelerates toward our > original electro-magnet, which induces an opposing > voltage against the original > electro-magnets current. This consumes energy from the > original electro-magnet in the > amount of the opposing voltage times the current. > Then the electro-magnets turn off to > collect some of the original energy. The amount of > energy lost during the entire process > is equal to far field loss plus KE energy gained. :-) > > > > > > > > P.S. The confusion over the definition of > "universe" is yours (and shared by all people > talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I > said the universe is all there is, by > definition: > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe > > as can be easily understood from such derived words > as "universal". If you dislike the > word, "nature" is fine for me too. > > > > You still don't seem to understand. Even the same > website clarifies if you took the time > to lookup Omniverse --> > > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Omniverse > Quote, "In physical cosmology, omniverse is a term > used to differentiate a limited number > of ***universes*** from all existent universes." Take > note of the plural word > "universes." Again, the definition of "universe" is > in the process of changing, now that > we are accepting existence beyond our universe. > > > > > > > > No offense as you like to say, but isn't this an > excellent occasion to show us how > gladly you admit being in error Paul? ;-) > > > So far I am not in error, and it seems you are not > willing to claim your 2nd and 3rd error. > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:40 PM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > ... > >> I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in > >> error I ***gladly*** admit such error. > >> Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > > > >>> I know about induced emf, my comment > >>> mentioned no other current loop around, in which > >> context it is 100% correct :) > > > >> I am sorry, but your statement was clear and > >> incorrect. Your quote, > >> --- > >> "You keep telling us electromagnets consume > energy, > >> true but that's only because the wires > >> are resistive
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > You insist, very aggressively, that my statement was incorrect even if I meant one electro-magnet. Well the case is simple enough, let's work it out. If it's non-resistive it's purely inductive, so v=-L*di/dt right? So if current i is constant, voltage v is zero, therefore consumed power i*v is zero, and so is consumed energy i*v*t. So as I said, "a non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going". > > Now this may come as an even bigger surprise to you, but a pure inductance is in fact unable to consume _any energy at all_, even if current is not constant. It can store energy (1/2*L*i^2), it can transfer energy when mutual inductance is at play, but it just can't consume any. Resistance can consume energy, reactance can't, any textbook will tell you that. You still do not see it. Back to your quote, "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's ***ONLY*** because the wires are resistive." Lets consider an electro-magnet that has no wire resistance. We energize the coil, which moves energy from the battery to the near and far field. Right off the bat we have unrecoverable energy lost in the far field ... with no wire resistance. :-))) Now to continue, near the electro-magnet is another electro-magnet. This electro-magnet accelerates toward our original electro-magnet, which induces an opposing voltage against the original electro-magnets current. This consumes energy from the original electro-magnet in the amount of the opposing voltage times the current. Then the electro-magnets turn off to collect some of the original energy. The amount of energy lost during the entire process is equal to far field loss plus KE energy gained. :-) > P.S. The confusion over the definition of "universe" is yours (and shared by all people talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I said the universe is all there is, by definition: > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe > as can be easily understood from such derived words as "universal". If you dislike the word, "nature" is fine for me too. You still don't seem to understand. Even the same website clarifies if you took the time to lookup Omniverse --> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Omniverse Quote, "In physical cosmology, omniverse is a term used to differentiate a limited number of ***universes*** from all existent universes." Take note of the plural word "universes." Again, the definition of "universe" is in the process of changing, now that we are accepting existence beyond our universe. > No offense as you like to say, but isn't this an excellent occasion to show us how gladly you admit being in error Paul? ;-) So far I am not in error, and it seems you are not willing to claim your 2nd and 3rd error. Regards, Paul Lowrance > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > ... >> I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in >> error I ***gladly*** admit such error. >> Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > >>> I know about induced emf, my comment >>> mentioned no other current loop around, in which >> context it is 100% correct :) > >> I am sorry, but your statement was clear and >> incorrect. Your quote, >> --- >> "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, >> true but that's only because the wires >> are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not >> consume any energy to keep the >> current going." >> --- >> You said, "electromagnets" Notice the "s," which >> means plural. You know what? It does >> not even matter if you meant one electro-magnet >> because your statement is still incorrect. >> Electro-magnets have induction, so you can't even >> energize the thing without consuming >> such energy. Of course there is wire resistance, but >> there is also ***reactance***. >> Right off the bat your statement is incorrect. >> Second, we were clearly discussing two >> electro-magnets accelerating toward each other. Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
You insist, very aggressively, that my statement was incorrect even if I meant one electro-magnet. Well the case is simple enough, let's work it out. If it's non-resistive it's purely inductive, so v=-L*di/dt right? So if current i is constant, voltage v is zero, therefore consumed power i*v is zero, and so is consumed energy i*v*t. So as I said, "a non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going". Now this may come as an even bigger surprise to you, but a pure inductance is in fact unable to consume _any energy at all_, even if current is not constant. It can store energy (1/2*L*i^2), it can transfer energy when mutual inductance is at play, but it just can't consume any. Resistance can consume energy, reactance can't, any textbook will tell you that. No offense as you like to say, but isn't this an excellent occasion to show us how gladly you admit being in error Paul? ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics ... > I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in > error I ***gladly*** admit such error. > Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > > I know about induced emf, my comment > > mentioned no other current loop around, in which > context it is 100% correct :) > I am sorry, but your statement was clear and > incorrect. Your quote, > --- > "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, > true but that's only because the wires > are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not > consume any energy to keep the > current going." > --- > You said, "electromagnets" Notice the "s," which > means plural. You know what? It does > not even matter if you meant one electro-magnet > because your statement is still incorrect. > Electro-magnets have induction, so you can't even > energize the thing without consuming > such energy. Of course there is wire resistance, but > there is also ***reactance***. > Right off the bat your statement is incorrect. > Second, we were clearly discussing two > electro-magnets accelerating toward each other.
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul wrote: > For example, many centuries ago people did not > understand where the energy contained in > compressed air came from. They could have easily > attributed it to a separate hidden energy > storage compartment created and handled by nature, > called PE. We now know that's a silly > idea because we understand exactly where the energy is > stored in compressed air. Present > physics just calls it PE. There is no PE. > What if you create two iron atoms, each 1 micron > apart. How much PE is there. How much PE > between two iron atoms created at the ends of our > universe. How much PE between two iron > atoms created in different universes. Nature does not > need to know such silly things, > because energy always exists, there's no hidden > undetectable backdoor of energy. Energy is > simply moved from one source to another. This is what it sounds like to me. We have, over the last few centuries been able to expand our energy supply beyond that afforded by our own manual labour by the outsourcing the job to nature. > ... I think if you go back and read my posts you'll > get the gist of the theory. > >> However, as I tried to explain, the concept of > _power_ >> is still relevant. > > Yes, but we don't need to mention both power and > energy, as energy incorporates power over > time. Energy is an economic construct. It is not really "out there". Harry
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi Paul, ... > > One can only go by the words of another. May I ask > what you meant by the uppercased words > in, "Living and experiencing the universe within the > context of one's own created computer > 'simulations' is no doubt a fascinating learning > experience. No doubt, it has its place in > the greater scheme of things. I'M GUILTY OF HAVING > PARTICIPATED IN THIS ***CRIME*** AS WELL." > I plead the 5th, on the grounds that to testify might incriminate me. Regards, --- Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.OrionWorks.com
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Harry sez: ... > > One man's "garbage" is another man's "gold". > However, feeding "gold" to a computer seems pointless > to me... unless _we_ are the computer. ;-) > > Harry > Yes, indeedie! Couldn't have articulated any better than that! Which one will it be today, the red or blue pill. Regards, --- Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > Enjoy your simulations! Thank you! > PS: I never said I would take "pen and paper" over a computer. Do not infer > what was never said. One can only go by the words of another. May I ask what you meant by the uppercased words in, "Living and experiencing the universe within the context of one's own created computer 'simulations' is no doubt a fascinating learning experience. No doubt, it has its place in the greater scheme of things. I'M GUILTY OF HAVING PARTICIPATED IN THIS ***CRIME*** AS WELL." Regards, Paul Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: >> I've adapted my own style of physics... > > No problem, I was only suggesting this as a way for you to realize you can't do away > with PE. Simulation software is usually based on forces and fields, so indeed it doesn't > have to compute energy to solve things. Which software do you use, something of your > own making? To realize? It's the only way of doing it without using magic. For now I see no reason to use a magnetic monopole. I'll just have to use what already works, the current loop. :-) >> That's an odd statement since it is 100.0% >> incorrect. :-) No offense intended > > A less peremptory tone would be more productive. I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in error I ***gladly*** admit such error. Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > I know about induced emf, my comment > mentioned no other current loop around, in which context it is 100% correct :) I am sorry, but your statement was clear and incorrect. Your quote, --- "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the wires are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going." --- You said, "electromagnets" Notice the "s," which means plural. You know what? It does not even matter if you meant one electro-magnet because your statement is still incorrect. Electro-magnets have induction, so you can't even energize the thing without consuming such energy. Of course there is wire resistance, but there is also ***reactance***. Right off the bat your statement is incorrect. Second, we were clearly discussing two electro-magnets accelerating toward each other. Regards, Paul Lowrance Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote: > Paul sez: > > ... > >> >> I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the >> pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is >> computer software. Computers are best at mathematics, >> speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large >> computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software >> has no such magical PE. What I've described here at >> vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience >> what I've experienced through simulations. > > Living and experiencing the universe within the context of one's own created > computer "simulations" is no doubt a fascinating learning experience. No > doubt, it has its place in the greater scheme of things. I'm guilty of > having participated in this crime as well. However, it has been my > experience that the physical universe, particularly the one we all must > interface in, never asked me for my personal opinion on how she has chosen > to run the store. > > As the old saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out. One man's "garbage" is another man's "gold". However, feeding "gold" to a computer seems pointless to me... unless _we_ are the computer. ;-) Harry
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Enjoy your simulations! PS: I never said I would take "pen and paper" over a computer. Do not infer what was never said. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com > -Original Message- > From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:22 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > > OrionWorks wrote: > > Paul sez: > > > > ... > > > >> I've adapted my own style of physics and retired > the > >> pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is > >> computer software. Computers are best at > mathematics, > >> speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one > large > >> computer. As far as PE, my present simulation > software > >> has no such magical PE. What I've described here > at > >> vortex is one thing, but only if you could > experience > >> what I've experienced through simulations. > > > > Living and experiencing the universe within the > context of one's own created > > computer "simulations" is no doubt a fascinating > learning experience. No > > doubt, it has its place in the greater scheme of > things. I'm guilty of > > having participated in this crime as well. However, > it has been my > > experience that the physical universe, particularly > the one we all must > > interface in, never asked me for my personal > opinion on how she has chosen > > to run the store. > > > > As the old saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out. > > > No offense intended, but that's Fuzzy Logic. > > First, it is not about getting nature to ask you about > your personal opinion, lol. It is > about asking nature how she does it. > > Second, I would take the computer over the pen and > paper any time. You can have your pen > and paper. Mathematics is the language of computers. > Computers can compute any > mathematics far faster, more precise, and more > accurate than any pen and paper. Computers > can juggle billions of such equations to formulate > simulates. > > Third, your opening first two sentences were the only > correct ones. Some people are > followers. Some are a little head of time. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > __ > __ > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 > >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote: > Paul sez: > > ... > >> I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the >> pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is >> computer software. Computers are best at mathematics, >> speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large >> computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software >> has no such magical PE. What I've described here at >> vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience >> what I've experienced through simulations. > > Living and experiencing the universe within the context of one's own created > computer "simulations" is no doubt a fascinating learning experience. No > doubt, it has its place in the greater scheme of things. I'm guilty of > having participated in this crime as well. However, it has been my > experience that the physical universe, particularly the one we all must > interface in, never asked me for my personal opinion on how she has chosen > to run the store. > > As the old saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out. No offense intended, but that's Fuzzy Logic. First, it is not about getting nature to ask you about your personal opinion, lol. It is about asking nature how she does it. Second, I would take the computer over the pen and paper any time. You can have your pen and paper. Mathematics is the language of computers. Computers can compute any mathematics far faster, more precise, and more accurate than any pen and paper. Computers can juggle billions of such equations to formulate simulates. Third, your opening first two sentences were the only correct ones. Some people are followers. Some are a little head of time. Regards, Paul Lowrance We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Paul wrote: >> Michel Jullian wrote: >> > Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics >> derivations (analytically) without >> > the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed >> reached by the ball in a pendulum released >> > at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function >> of string length, this kind of stuff. >> >> >> I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the >> pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is computer software. >> Computers are best >> at mathematics, speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large >> computer. As far as >> PE, my present simulation software has no such magical PE. What I've >> described here at >> vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience what I've >> experienced through >> simulations. For example, it is well known that the electron is >> expressed in Ampere-Meter^2. Therefore what else are you going to use >> to simulate electron spin? Well, it turns out >> such current-loops form a magnetic dipole moment in space. Furthermore >> two current-loops >> rotate facing each other while accelerating toward each. Last, but not >> least, there >> exists opposing induced voltage on the current-loops, which consumes >> energy from such >> current-loops. The amount of energy consumed from such current-loops >> equals the gained KE >> and increase in field. There's no real way getting around it in terms >> of simulation. That completely eliminates the need for such PE. :-) > > But that's kind of the point, isn't it? That DOESN'T WORK for > electrons, because they don't slow down, the current doesn't reduce, > there's no battery attached to them (that we can see), and any > hypothetical "back EMF" in the electron's imagined "current loop" has no > effect. I fail to see such logic. Does the current source connected to the electro-magnet slow down, lol? No it does not. We simply do ***not*** know what's inside the electron, much less how it is sustained. > If you eliminate the PE then you need to provide the energy from some > other source. ZPE, quantum foam, etc. etc.? We simply do not know, yet. > You can model an electron as one electric monopole and two magnetic > monopoles, and that works just as well as modeling it as an electric > monopole and a current loop. The current loop model just seems more > familiar. There's no know method of creating a magnetic monopole device. In fact, such a monopole is still undetected. If it exists then IMHO it is merely a higher dimensional artifact, in that we simply cannot see the magnetic closed loop, as such a closed loop would circle through a higher dimension, and hence such a magnetic monopole would be a 3-dimensional illusion. Perhaps that is why people use the current loop instead. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
> I've adapted my own style of physics... No problem, I was only suggesting this as a way for you to realize you can't do away with PE. Simulation software is usually based on forces and fields, so indeed it doesn't have to compute energy to solve things. Which software do you use, something of your own making? > That's an odd statement since it is 100.0% > incorrect. :-) No offense intended A less peremptory tone would be more productive. I know about induced emf, my comment mentioned no other current loop around, in which context it is 100% correct :) Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics > derivations (analytically) without > > the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed > reached by the ball in a pendulum released > > at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function > of string length, this kind of stuff. > > > I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the > pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future > of physics is computer software. Computers are best > at mathematics, speed, and memory. I > view the Omniverse as one large computer. As far as > PE, my present simulation software > has no such magical PE. What I've described here at > vortex is one thing, but only if you > could experience what I've experienced through > simulations. For example, it is well known > that the electron is expressed in Ampere-Meter^2. > Therefore what else are you going to > use to simulate electron spin? Well, it turns out > such current-loops form a magnetic > dipole moment in space. Furthermore two current-loops > rotate facing each other while > accelerating toward each. Last, but not least, there > exists opposing induced voltage on > the current-loops, which consumes energy from such > current-loops. The amount of energy > consumed from such current-loops equals the gained KE > and increase in field. There's no > real way getting around it in terms of simulation. > That completely eliminates the need > for such PE. :-) Quite frankly I know of no other way > of simulating electron spin, unless > I tell the computer "Hey, ignore all reasons why, but > just make this particle magically > create a magnetic field in the shape of a dipole > moment. > > > > > You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, > true but that's only because the > > wires are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop > would not consume any energy to keep > > the current going. > > > That's an odd statement since it is 100.0% > incorrect. :-) No offense intended, but I > need to spend less time in discussion, since recently > and oddly enough I'm getting odd > emails (not from any known person at vortex) asking > repetitive questions that appear to > merely dissipate my time. It's consuming half my day. > > Michel, it is called induced voltage, and I assure you > such induced voltage exists. If we > have two wire loops facing each other with current > flowing the same rotational direction > there will be a force attracting the two wire loops > toward each other. As the wire loops > accelerate toward each other there are more so-called > magnetic lines entering/cutting each > wire loop. That is where the induced voltage comes > from, and such induced voltage > ***opposes*** the current in the wire. Power consumed > is induced voltage times the direct > current. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > > Michel > > > > P.S. The confusion over the definition of > "universe" is yours (and shared by all people > talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I > said the universe is all there is, by > definition: > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe > > as can be easily understood from such derived words > as "universal". If you dislike the > word, "nature" is fine for me too. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>> I didn't understand your reply, would the > >> elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a > >> neutron, a quark) lose something while falling > towards > >> a planet? > >> > >>
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul sez: ... > > I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the > pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is > computer software. Computers are best at mathematics, > speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large > computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software > has no such magical PE. What I've described here at > vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience > what I've experienced through simulations. Living and experiencing the universe within the context of one's own created computer "simulations" is no doubt a fascinating learning experience. No doubt, it has its place in the greater scheme of things. I'm guilty of having participated in this crime as well. However, it has been my experience that the physical universe, particularly the one we all must interface in, never asked me for my personal opinion on how she has chosen to run the store. As the old saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: > Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics derivations (analytically) without > the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed reached by the ball in a pendulum released > at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function of string length, this kind of stuff. I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is computer software. Computers are best at mathematics, speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software has no such magical PE. What I've described here at vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience what I've experienced through simulations. For example, it is well known that the electron is expressed in Ampere-Meter^2. Therefore what else are you going to use to simulate electron spin? Well, it turns out such current-loops form a magnetic dipole moment in space. Furthermore two current-loops rotate facing each other while accelerating toward each. Last, but not least, there exists opposing induced voltage on the current-loops, which consumes energy from such current-loops. The amount of energy consumed from such current-loops equals the gained KE and increase in field. There's no real way getting around it in terms of simulation. That completely eliminates the need for such PE. :-) But that's kind of the point, isn't it? That DOESN'T WORK for electrons, because they don't slow down, the current doesn't reduce, there's no battery attached to them (that we can see), and any hypothetical "back EMF" in the electron's imagined "current loop" has no effect. If you eliminate the PE then you need to provide the energy from some other source. You can model an electron as one electric monopole and two magnetic monopoles, and that works just as well as modeling it as an electric monopole and a current loop. The current loop model just seems more familiar.
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics derivations (analytically) without > the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed reached by the ball in a pendulum released > at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function of string length, this kind of stuff. I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is computer software. Computers are best at mathematics, speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software has no such magical PE. What I've described here at vortex is one thing, but only if you could experience what I've experienced through simulations. For example, it is well known that the electron is expressed in Ampere-Meter^2. Therefore what else are you going to use to simulate electron spin? Well, it turns out such current-loops form a magnetic dipole moment in space. Furthermore two current-loops rotate facing each other while accelerating toward each. Last, but not least, there exists opposing induced voltage on the current-loops, which consumes energy from such current-loops. The amount of energy consumed from such current-loops equals the gained KE and increase in field. There's no real way getting around it in terms of simulation. That completely eliminates the need for such PE. :-) Quite frankly I know of no other way of simulating electron spin, unless I tell the computer "Hey, ignore all reasons why, but just make this particle magically create a magnetic field in the shape of a dipole moment. > You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the > wires are resistive. A non-resistive current-loop would not consume any energy to keep > the current going. That's an odd statement since it is 100.0% incorrect. :-) No offense intended, but I need to spend less time in discussion, since recently and oddly enough I'm getting odd emails (not from any known person at vortex) asking repetitive questions that appear to merely dissipate my time. It's consuming half my day. Michel, it is called induced voltage, and I assure you such induced voltage exists. If we have two wire loops facing each other with current flowing the same rotational direction there will be a force attracting the two wire loops toward each other. As the wire loops accelerate toward each other there are more so-called magnetic lines entering/cutting each wire loop. That is where the induced voltage comes from, and such induced voltage ***opposes*** the current in the wire. Power consumed is induced voltage times the direct current. Regards, Paul Lowrance > Michel > > P.S. The confusion over the definition of "universe" is yours (and shared by all people talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I said the universe is all there is, by definition: > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe > as can be easily understood from such derived words as "universal". If you dislike the word, "nature" is fine for me too. > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> I didn't understand your reply, would the >> elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a >> neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards >> a planet? >> >> >> Basically you're asking what sustains such particles. >> To perhaps provide you with a >> different POV, here's an analogy even though all >> analogies are imperfect, but they server >> to make a point. The electro-magnet represents the >> particle. The source of power >> (current source) that sustains the electro-magnet >> would represent "Space." >> >> We agree energy is being moved from the battery when >> two electro-magnets accelerate toward >> each other in magnetic attraction. We agree such >> energy is moved from the battery to KE >> and an increase in B-field. In the case of permanent >> magnets, we both agree that energy of >> "some sort" is moving to the magnets in way of KE in >> addition to a net increase in >> B-field. You refer to such an energy source as PE. I >> am pointing out very obvious >> patterns in nature that indicates such energy is not >> yet another different aspect. That >> such PE is not yet another separate type. We see PE >> popping its head in QM and Classical >> equations. IMHO PE should *not* be some magical glue >> to bond and balance m
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics derivations (analytically) without the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed reached by the ball in a pendulum released at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function of string length, this kind of stuff. You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the wires are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going. Michel P.S. The confusion over the definition of "universe" is yours (and shared by all people talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I said the universe is all there is, by definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe as can be easily understood from such derived words as "universal". If you dislike the word, "nature" is fine for me too. - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > I didn't understand your reply, would the > elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a > neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards > a planet? > > > Basically you're asking what sustains such particles. > To perhaps provide you with a > different POV, here's an analogy even though all > analogies are imperfect, but they server > to make a point. The electro-magnet represents the > particle. The source of power > (current source) that sustains the electro-magnet > would represent "Space." > > We agree energy is being moved from the battery when > two electro-magnets accelerate toward > each other in magnetic attraction. We agree such > energy is moved from the battery to KE > and an increase in B-field. In the case of permanent > magnets, we both agree that energy of > "some sort" is moving to the magnets in way of KE in > addition to a net increase in > B-field. You refer to such an energy source as PE. I > am pointing out very obvious > patterns in nature that indicates such energy is not > yet another different aspect. That > such PE is not yet another separate type. We see PE > popping its head in QM and Classical > equations. IMHO PE should *not* be some magical glue > to bond and balance mathematical > theories together. > > You might ask as to what patterns in nature am I > referring to. Anything from springs to > electro-magnets. Long ago people probably looked at > the spring and could only imagine > where such energy was being stored, where it was going > to and coming from. Today the > spring is no mystery. We know about atomic bonds. :-) > > When humanity discovers an electro-gravity coil then > do you truly believe it will require > *no* energy when objects accelerate toward such a coil > while it is on? We already know > what happens when the electro-magnet coil attracts > magnetic materials. It requires energy. > > > > > > BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a > property of the universe rather than of an > object. > > > That's exactly what you seem to believe. As two iron > atoms accelerate toward each other > we know it gains KE and a net increase in magnetic > field. You believe nature has a back > door of energy, figuratively speaking. A hidden > storage compartment that cannot be seen > or analyzed while in storage. Such a theory is fine > if one has nothing else, or until we > begin to perceive such aforementioned patterns in > nature, or until we analyze the > equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment, which we > call the electro-magnet. Also, such a > concept of PE is very ugly as far as simulation > programs are concerned. It's difficult > enough simulation known energy. > > > > > > BTW2, the universe is all that exists, by > definition. Parallel "universes" should be > called something else. > > > I believe you are confusing Omniverse or Multiverse > with the word "universe." You cannot > say the universe is all there is if you accept > parallel universes. It's just a definition > anyway, which I often call "all there is" as Nature, > but sometimes I prefer Omniverse. > > > > Regards, > Paul > > > > > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast > with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Harry Veeder wrote: > Paul wrote: > >> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> Paul, >>> >>> >>> I think what you are alluding to is more correctly >> called "power" >>> rather than "energy". Indeed, "power" can be >> defined without the >>> concept of "energy". >> >> Hi Harry, >> >> The discussion was regarding PE. So I was referring >> to energy. >> > > > I know. Let be more frank. > If PE irrelevant to physics then so is the concept of _energy_. That's not the point. I do not view fields as PE. I am pointing there are no hidden source of PE, that such PE is an illusion for the aid of mathematic due to a flawed theory. It's not math's fault, it's the theories fault. Consider four separated magnets (M1, M2, M3, M4) at random distances. Present physics does not know where the energy comes from so they simply say there is X1 PE between M1 & M2, X2 PE between M1 & M3, X3 PE between M1 & M4, X4 PE between M2 & M3, X5 PE between M2 & M4, X6 PE between M3 & M4. Such a theory is fine if that's all you have, but I've simplified it and done away with PE. For example, many centuries ago people did not understand where the energy contained in compressed air came from. They could have easily attributed it to a separate hidden energy storage compartment created and handled by nature, called PE. We now know that's a silly idea because we understand exactly where the energy is stored in compressed air. Present physics just calls it PE. There is no PE. What if you create two iron atoms, each 1 micron apart. How much PE is there. How much PE between two iron atoms created at the ends of our universe. How much PE between two iron atoms created in different universes. Nature does not need to know such silly things, because energy always exists, there's no hidden undetectable backdoor of energy. Energy is simply moved from one source to another. ... I think if you go back and read my posts you'll get the gist of the theory. > However, as I tried to explain, the concept of _power_ > is still relevant. Yes, but we don't need to mention both power and energy, as energy incorporates power over time. Regards, Paul Lowrance No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: >> Paul, >> >> >> I think what you are alluding to is more correctly > called "power" >> rather than "energy". Indeed, "power" can be > defined without the >> concept of "energy". > > > Hi Harry, > > The discussion was regarding PE. So I was referring > to energy. > I know. Let be more frank. If PE irrelevant to physics then so is the concept of _energy_. However, as I tried to explain, the concept of _power_ is still relevant. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Harry Veeder wrote: > Paul, > > > I think what you are alluding to is more correctly called "power" > rather than "energy". Indeed, "power" can be defined without the > concept of "energy". Hi Harry, The discussion was regarding PE. So I was referring to energy. Harry Veeder wrote: > That begs the question how much PE does the universe have? > > Harry > > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle, >> e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet? >> >> BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property of the universe rather >> than of an object. Well that depends who you ask. Some believe such PE is unknown. IMHO there's no such thing as PE. I consider B & E fields energy. Michel Jullian wrote: > P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put it on > top or near the top (blind people friendly convention, they read > the posts by text to speech software and don't want to hear all the > old stuff they already know about Good idea. Regards, Paul Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul, I think what you are alluding to is more correctly called "power" rather than "energy". Indeed, "power" can be defined without the concept of "energy". All you need to express power is force F times velocity v, *Dimensionally* this has the same units as [E]/[t], since [F][v] -> [m][a][v] -> [p]^2/[m][t] -> [m]^2[v]^2/[t] In first year physics the power needed to lift a weight is usually presented in terms of force f, the height it is lifted and the time taken( P = Fd/t = Work/t = E/t) This gives the _total_ power required, but the significance of the number lies in the design and completion of a task. This number might of interest to the person performing the task or to an energy planner but the machinations of men are simply incidental to nature. A quantity that is not incidental to nature is the instantaneous rate of power consumption. If the weight being lifted at time t has a velocity v, then the lifter (man, animal or machine) must have an instantaneous power consumption rate. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet? Basically you're asking what sustains such particles. To perhaps provide you with a different POV, here's an analogy even though all analogies are imperfect, but they server to make a point. The electro-magnet represents the particle. The source of power (current source) that sustains the electro-magnet would represent "Space." We agree energy is being moved from the battery when two electro-magnets accelerate toward each other in magnetic attraction. We agree such energy is moved from the battery to KE and an increase in B-field. In the case of permanent magnets, we both agree that energy of "some sort" is moving to the magnets in way of KE in addition to a net increase in B-field. You refer to such an energy source as PE. I am pointing out very obvious patterns in nature that indicates such energy is not yet another different aspect. That such PE is not yet another separate type. We see PE popping its head in QM and Classical equations. IMHO PE should *not* be some magical glue to bond and balance mathematical theories together. You might ask as to what patterns in nature am I referring to. Anything from springs to electro-magnets. Long ago people probably looked at the spring and could only imagine where such energy was being stored, where it was going to and coming from. Today the spring is no mystery. We know about atomic bonds. :-) When humanity discovers an electro-gravity coil then do you truly believe it will require *no* energy when objects accelerate toward such a coil while it is on? We already know what happens when the electro-magnet coil attracts magnetic materials. It requires energy. > BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property of the universe rather than of an object. That's exactly what you seem to believe. As two iron atoms accelerate toward each other we know it gains KE and a net increase in magnetic field. You believe nature has a back door of energy, figuratively speaking. A hidden storage compartment that cannot be seen or analyzed while in storage. Such a theory is fine if one has nothing else, or until we begin to perceive such aforementioned patterns in nature, or until we analyze the equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment, which we call the electro-magnet. Also, such a concept of PE is very ugly as far as simulation programs are concerned. It's difficult enough simulation known energy. > BTW2, the universe is all that exists, by definition. Parallel "universes" should be called something else. I believe you are confusing Omniverse or Multiverse with the word "universe." You cannot say the universe is all there is if you accept parallel universes. It's just a definition anyway, which I often call "all there is" as Nature, but sometimes I prefer Omniverse. Regards, Paul Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
That begs the question how much PE does the universe have? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: > I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle, > e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet? > > BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property of the universe rather > than of an object.
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet? BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property of the universe rather than of an object. BTW2, the universe is all that exists, by definition. Parallel "universes" should be called something else. Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Hi, > > Michel Jullian wrote: > > I did read your reply, I did think for a while, but > I still disagree ;-) > > > > You insist on some _internal_ energy being spent > while the object falls. Where would it > come from when the object is an elementary particle > such as an electron, would it lose > mass or something? :-) > > > Those are items I addressed in a previous post. > Here's an outline though. Short answer > is we simply do not know what's inside the electron, > what causes and sustains the E-field, > the magnetic dipole moment, angular momentum, etc. > Such fields would normally disperse > and spread across space on their own accord. For now > it's called the electron and left at > that, but the quest still exists. > > > What we do know --> > > * The electron creates a magnetic field. > * A current loop creates a magnetic field. > > * The electron creates a magnetic dipole moment. > * A current loop creates a magnetic dipole moment. > > * The electron spin can be expressed in Ampere Meters2 > units. > * A current loop can be expressed in Ampere Meters2 > units. > > * An electron was created and will one day be > destroyed. > * A current loop was created and will one day be > destroyed. > > * Two attracting dipoles accelerating toward each > other consumes energy from the current > loop source. Two repelling dipoles decelerating toward > each other adds energy to the > current loop source. > * (still to be determined). > > > That's just B-field comparison. Top that off with the > fact that the same applies to the > E-field, as such energy comparisons work out nicely. > > And there are the difficulties with PE. Two iron > atoms created 1 micron apart have a > certain amount of PE. Two iron atoms created galaxies > apart have a certain amount of PE. > Two iron atoms created in different big-bang universes > as claimed by M-theory have a > certain amount of PE. Not to mention the idea that > are claiming nature somehow hides such PE. > > Present theory requires two forms of energy, KE and > PE. My theory simplifies and does > away with the idea of hidden PE. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > Michel > > > > P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put > it on top or near the top (blind > people friendly convention, they read the posts by > text to speech software and don't want > to hear all the old stuff they already know about > -especially when it's lengthy- before > getting to the new stuff, as one of them told me once > on another mailing list) > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >> --- > >>> Paul, if I understand correctly your long > comments > >> below (BTW could we be as concise as > >> possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff > on > >> top whenever possible?), > >> --- > >> > >> > >> Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >> --- > >>> you believe that potential energy in general (not > >> just magnetic, but also > >> gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just > a > >> convenient concept, and there must be > >> some real energy underlying this concept, and you > want > >> to know where this real energy > >> comes from. > >>> I believe on the contrary that potential energy > is > >> as real as energy can be. Taking > >> gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no > >> cross-products, Curie points etc..), the > >> PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, > _by > >> definition_, to the work that must be > >> done to lift it back
Re: [Vo]: Re:[VO]: Energy *Violations* using " standard" physics
RC Macaulay wrote: > Blank > > Excerps from Paul's post.. > >> You are asking way too much from nature. > > Nature?.. do you mean Physics? we actually know little about physics.. perhaps some assumed values is all. Some call it nature. Some call it the universe, etc. The name universe has now changed since M-theory claims the big-bang is not all there is, and I agree. IMHO there is no end. Often I simply refer to all there is as "nature." >> My theory simply states energy is simply moved from >> one location to another. > > Location? do you mean Regimes? unless we know the origin, it becomes impossible to "track" it's movement from regime to regime. Regime? You claim it is impossible to track where energy moves? We have a battery full of energy. Two energized attracting electro-magnets accelerate toward each other. We end up with KE and a net increase in magnetic field. We end up with less energy in the battery. Indeed I say energy moved from the battery. :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi, Michel Jullian wrote: > I did read your reply, I did think for a while, but I still disagree ;-) > > You insist on some _internal_ energy being spent while the object falls. Where would it come from when the object is an elementary particle such as an electron, would it lose mass or something? :-) Those are items I addressed in a previous post. Here's an outline though. Short answer is we simply do not know what's inside the electron, what causes and sustains the E-field, the magnetic dipole moment, angular momentum, etc. Such fields would normally disperse and spread across space on their own accord. For now it's called the electron and left at that, but the quest still exists. What we do know --> * The electron creates a magnetic field. * A current loop creates a magnetic field. * The electron creates a magnetic dipole moment. * A current loop creates a magnetic dipole moment. * The electron spin can be expressed in Ampere Meters2 units. * A current loop can be expressed in Ampere Meters2 units. * An electron was created and will one day be destroyed. * A current loop was created and will one day be destroyed. * Two attracting dipoles accelerating toward each other consumes energy from the current loop source. Two repelling dipoles decelerating toward each other adds energy to the current loop source. * (still to be determined). That's just B-field comparison. Top that off with the fact that the same applies to the E-field, as such energy comparisons work out nicely. And there are the difficulties with PE. Two iron atoms created 1 micron apart have a certain amount of PE. Two iron atoms created galaxies apart have a certain amount of PE. Two iron atoms created in different big-bang universes as claimed by M-theory have a certain amount of PE. Not to mention the idea that are claiming nature somehow hides such PE. Present theory requires two forms of energy, KE and PE. My theory simplifies and does away with the idea of hidden PE. Regards, Paul Lowrance > Michel > > P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put it on top or near the top (blind people friendly convention, they read the posts by text to speech software and don't want to hear all the old stuff they already know about -especially when it's lengthy- before getting to the new stuff, as one of them told me once on another mailing list) > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >> --- >>> Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments >> below (BTW could we be as concise as >> possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff on >> top whenever possible?), >> --- >> >> >> Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment. >> >> >> >> >> Michel Jullian wrote: >> --- >>> you believe that potential energy in general (not >> just magnetic, but also >> gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just a >> convenient concept, and there must be >> some real energy underlying this concept, and you want >> to know where this real energy >> comes from. >>> I believe on the contrary that potential energy is >> as real as energy can be. Taking >> gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no >> cross-products, Curie points etc..), the >> PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, _by >> definition_, to the work that must be >> done to lift it back up. If PE wasn't real there would >> be no real counterpart to the real >> work done when lifting the weight, as there would be >> no counterpart to the kinetic energy >> of the weight when it falls. >>> Besides you can't replace PE by a _quantifiable_ >> energy as you suggest (annihilated or >> weakened electrons), because PE has an arbitrary zero. >> We can't tell how much intrinsic PE >> there is in the weight because we don't know on which >> planet we are going to let it fall, >> agreed? >> --- >> >> >> No offense intended, but it seems you are not grasping >> the depth of my theory, as what you >> say adds even more credence to my theory, which >> dismisses the idea of PE; i.e., you don't >> know how much PE you'll ever need. If you carefully >> read this entire reply I believe you >> could only agree with my theory in all honesty. >> >> Two iron atoms could have been created 1 micron apart, >> which would constitute a certain >> amount of PE. The iron atom
[Vo]: Re:[VO]: Energy *Violations* using " standard" physics
Blank Excerps from Paul's post.. >You are asking way too much from nature. Nature?.. do you mean Physics? we actually know little about physics.. perhaps some assumed values is all. >My theory simply states energy is simply moved from >one location to another. Location? do you mean Regimes? unless we know the origin, it becomes impossible to "track" it's movement from regime to regime. The account of Moses coming down off the mountain ... he said.. my prayer is that I would know God... Moses spent 40 days up on the mountain in conversation and instruction from God.. and he discovered he was almost vacant as to an understanding. I have my physics textbook from engineering school printed 1940's. It is as reliable as any present day literate work. What we may be seeing in this next generation of emerging scholars could be similar to the breakout of technology at Florence Italy in the 1500's. Consider that the people that burned their draft cards in the 60's are now in charge in Washington. Ask yourself what happened to those that entered academia rather than politics? Did they hinder the advance of science? How could a single generation put a man on the moon and the next generation query what "is" is while driving Enron into the ground like a tent stake and getting the nation into another " by jingo" war? Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
I did read your reply, I did think for a while, but I still disagree ;-) You insist on some _internal_ energy being spent while the object falls. Where would it come from when the object is an elementary particle such as an electron, would it lose mass or something? :-) Michel P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put it on top or near the top (blind people friendly convention, they read the posts by text to speech software and don't want to hear all the old stuff they already know about -especially when it's lengthy- before getting to the new stuff, as one of them told me once on another mailing list) - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > --- > > Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments > below (BTW could we be as concise as > possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff on > top whenever possible?), > --- > > > Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment. > > > > > Michel Jullian wrote: > --- > > you believe that potential energy in general (not > just magnetic, but also > gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just a > convenient concept, and there must be > some real energy underlying this concept, and you want > to know where this real energy > comes from. > > > > I believe on the contrary that potential energy is > as real as energy can be. Taking > gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no > cross-products, Curie points etc..), the > PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, _by > definition_, to the work that must be > done to lift it back up. If PE wasn't real there would > be no real counterpart to the real > work done when lifting the weight, as there would be > no counterpart to the kinetic energy > of the weight when it falls. > > Besides you can't replace PE by a _quantifiable_ > energy as you suggest (annihilated or > weakened electrons), because PE has an arbitrary zero. > We can't tell how much intrinsic PE > there is in the weight because we don't know on which > planet we are going to let it fall, > agreed? > --- > > > No offense intended, but it seems you are not grasping > the depth of my theory, as what you > say adds even more credence to my theory, which > dismisses the idea of PE; i.e., you don't > know how much PE you'll ever need. If you carefully > read this entire reply I believe you > could only agree with my theory in all honesty. > > Two iron atoms could have been created 1 micron apart, > which would constitute a certain > amount of PE. The iron atoms could have been created > in different solar systems, which > would constitute a certain amount of PE. The iron > atoms could have been created in > different galaxies, which would constitute a certain > amount of PE. The iron atoms could > have been created in different universes/big-bang (see > M-theory on beyond our big bang), > which would constitute a certain amount of PE. > > You are asking way too much from nature. I've written > far too many simulation programs to > know such an idea as PE is a nightmare for the simple > reason that you can ***add*** energy > to the system from nowhere. This is very clear and > simple in a simulation program. If you > want to add more energy to the system you simply > create two iron atoms that are even > farther apart and then allow them to accelerate toward > each other. :-( > > My theory simply states energy is simply moved from > one location to another. When the two > magnets accelerate toward each other it consumes > energy. And guess what, my theory is > already confirmed as much as we know two air core > electro-magnets do indeed consume energy > as they accelerate toward each other. > > Ah, and here's another surprising confirmation. :-) We > now have technology to create > electric fields on demand, which is in complete > agreement with my theory. Consider two > separated objects. One is negatively charged and the > other is positively charged. When > separated there exists an appreciably charged space, > which constitutes energy. We know > that it requires energy to charge space-- capacitors. > As the two objects accelerate > toward each other the net electric fields decrease, as > the negative & positive fields > cancel. :-) In a nutshell, we started with energy > that constitutes charged space, and we > ended up with "energy," the moving object. > > Lets see if the theory holds up to the opposite > situatio
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: --- > Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments below (BTW could we be as concise as possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff on top whenever possible?), --- Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment. Michel Jullian wrote: --- > you believe that potential energy in general (not just magnetic, but also gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just a convenient concept, and there must be some real energy underlying this concept, and you want to know where this real energy comes from. > > I believe on the contrary that potential energy is as real as energy can be. Taking gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no cross-products, Curie points etc..), the PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, _by definition_, to the work that must be done to lift it back up. If PE wasn't real there would be no real counterpart to the real work done when lifting the weight, as there would be no counterpart to the kinetic energy of the weight when it falls. > Besides you can't replace PE by a _quantifiable_ energy as you suggest (annihilated or weakened electrons), because PE has an arbitrary zero. We can't tell how much intrinsic PE there is in the weight because we don't know on which planet we are going to let it fall, agreed? --- No offense intended, but it seems you are not grasping the depth of my theory, as what you say adds even more credence to my theory, which dismisses the idea of PE; i.e., you don't know how much PE you'll ever need. If you carefully read this entire reply I believe you could only agree with my theory in all honesty. Two iron atoms could have been created 1 micron apart, which would constitute a certain amount of PE. The iron atoms could have been created in different solar systems, which would constitute a certain amount of PE. The iron atoms could have been created in different galaxies, which would constitute a certain amount of PE. The iron atoms could have been created in different universes/big-bang (see M-theory on beyond our big bang), which would constitute a certain amount of PE. You are asking way too much from nature. I've written far too many simulation programs to know such an idea as PE is a nightmare for the simple reason that you can ***add*** energy to the system from nowhere. This is very clear and simple in a simulation program. If you want to add more energy to the system you simply create two iron atoms that are even farther apart and then allow them to accelerate toward each other. :-( My theory simply states energy is simply moved from one location to another. When the two magnets accelerate toward each other it consumes energy. And guess what, my theory is already confirmed as much as we know two air core electro-magnets do indeed consume energy as they accelerate toward each other. Ah, and here's another surprising confirmation. :-) We now have technology to create electric fields on demand, which is in complete agreement with my theory. Consider two separated objects. One is negatively charged and the other is positively charged. When separated there exists an appreciably charged space, which constitutes energy. We know that it requires energy to charge space-- capacitors. As the two objects accelerate toward each other the net electric fields decrease, as the negative & positive fields cancel. :-) In a nutshell, we started with energy that constitutes charged space, and we ended up with "energy," the moving object. Lets see if the theory holds up to the opposite situation-- two objects charged with the same polarity. Again we initially have charged space. It requires energy to force the two objects closer together. This consumed energy goes in the way of charged space, as the two fields overlap. To top it all off, my theory is far simpler. In physics we strive to find the most fundamental theory. Your theory requires KE and PE. My theory requires one, plain old "energy." :-) I am sorry, but IMHO the evidence is overwhelming that my theory is correct-- knock on wood, lol. Think about it for a while. Regards, Paul Lowrance Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments below (BTW could we be as concise as possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff on top whenever possible?), you believe that potential energy in general (not just magnetic, but also gravitational, electric too I suppose...) is just a convenient concept, and there must be some real energy underlying this concept, and you want to know where this real energy comes from. I believe on the contrary that potential energy is as real as energy can be. Taking gravity as an example (simpler than magnetism, no cross-products, Curie points etc..), the PE lost by the falling weight is exactly equal, _by definition_, to the work that must be done to lift it back up. If PE wasn't real there would be no real counterpart to the real work done when lifting the weight, as there would be no counterpart to the kinetic energy of the weight when it falls. Besides you can't replace PE by a _quantifiable_ energy as you suggest (annihilated or weakened electrons), because PE has an arbitrary zero. We can't tell how much intrinsic PE there is in the weight because we don't know on which planet we are going to let it fall, agreed? Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > >>>> a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric > >>>> potential energy is decreasing somewhere, > >>>> I'll let you find where :) > > ... > >> ...We want > >> to know, lol! :-) > > > > Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial > explanation was wrong, so it's just > as well I kept it to myself ;-) > > > No problem! > > > > > Electric potential energy has nothing to do with > the matter as I realized (my apologies > for the misleading hint). > > Still it seemed obvious to me that _some_ potential > energy had to be decreasing, since > it takes work to bring > > the dipoles back to their non-aligned initial > state. Same reasoning as in the > non-rotating case where magnets > > are just attracted to each other, similar to a mass > falling off a table as previously > mentioned by Stephen. > > This led me to Googling "magnetic potential > energy", and bingo, there is such a thing, > and it decreases > > all right when magnetic dipoles align! > > > > You'll find a good explanation at the url below, > > for the case where one small dipole swivels inside > another, larger one (see their > > drawing for the geometry). In this simple case no > linear motion is involved, just the > > rotation to alignment we are concerned with, very > much like a compass needle aligns with > > the Earth's magnetic field without being pulled as > a whole one way or another. > > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magpot.html > : > > > > "A magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field will > possess potential energy which > > depends upon its orientation with respect to the > magnetic field. Since magnetic sources > > are inherently dipole sources which can be > visualized as a current loop with current I > > and area A, the energy is usually expressed in > terms of the magnetic dipole moment: > > > > U = -µ . B where µ=IA > > > > The energy is expressed as a scalar product, and > implies that the energy is lowest when > > the magnetic moment is aligned with the magnetic > field..." > > > > Therefore if the small magnet swivels without > friction it should oscillate like a pendulum > > around the aligned position, with energy being > similarly transferred back and forth between > > potential energy (max at max disalignment) and > kinetic energy plus field energy (max at > alignment). > > Variation of the latter can probably be neglected > in the small magnet vs big magnet case, > > just like one neglects the complete system's > gravitational field energy variation when > > deriving the pendulum's motion in the Earth's > gravitational field. > > > I mentioned that early on in the discussion that such > a dipole oscillates back and forth > due to momentum and magnetic attraction until friction > dissipates such energy. Although, > once again, that is beside the point. The point is > energy is coming from something > ***while the two dipoles are accelerating > angularly***. Below I'll describe the process > once again. > > > > > Energy conserved in standard physics, > unsurpris
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/25/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the other hand, electrons are more complex that just magnetic dipole moment. You might find this model of interest: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2787/2214/1600/app%206-7.jpg Terry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi Harvey, Sorry, I had typed up your reply yesterday, but had computer problems and lost what I was typing. The short version --> Harvey Norris wrote: > >> > Well not quite entirely, the current loop >> consisting in the orbiting motion has got to >> contribute _some_ magnetic dipole moment to the >> atom, >> however small this effect may be >> compared to that of the rotating motion. >> >> >> That's very true. Most of the field in ferromagnetic >> atoms comes from intrinsic electron >> spin, not orbital spin. For example, in Alnico 5 >> 94% >> comes from intrinsic electron spin. >> In Sm2Co17 63% from intrinsic electron spin. >> Paramagnetic materials is another story, >> but it's relatively weak. >> >> Regards, >> Paul Lowrance > > Hi Paul, some interesting facts here on > (ferro)magnetism. I am not well schooled in physics, > but I remember reading a book on magnetism where this > fact was brought on, that magnetism was created both > by "cohered" orbital electron orbits, and also the > actual spin of the electron while in orbit. (Here > refered to as intrinsic spin} I think it was also > noted that it was the single "unpaired" electron orbit > responsible for the magnetism due to orbital spin. > For every electron in orbit, the magnetic force it > creates reacts via lenz law to create a magnetic force > in opposition; with the net result that every > clockwise electron spin is paired with a > counterclockwise spin, so the net effect of these two > spins are magnetic cancellation. Thus ferromagnetic > materials should have an ODD number of electron orbits > so that the one unpaired spin can be "cohered" to all > spin at the same three dimensional angle among a > domain sample of many of these spins. I am somewhat > confused here, are the magnetic dipoles here referred > to a set of these opposite spinning electron orbits? Hopefully I understand your question. As you may know, one single electron has one single magnetic dipole moment. So if a ferro atom has 5 unpaired electrons then there are 5 unpaired magnetic dipole moments, but I'm sure you already knew that and therefore I'm uncertain what your question is regarding. I'm not a QM expert, I know the magnetic dipole moment of the electron is caused by its intrinsic spin within a magnetic field. As you know, QM claims electron spin is + or -, but this interpretation is misunderstood, as electron moment has a 3-dimension magnetic alignment. Therefore, the net magnetic field in a magnetic domain is caused by the alignment of such electron moments. On the other hand, electrons are more complex that just magnetic dipole moment. QM claims the single electron cannot completely stop. Therefore the electron is always moving. My latest simulation software of the electron shows the magnetic dipole moment of the free electron cannot directly align in the direction it's moving. > My next question regards macroscopic spin. If we > understand gyroscopic laws a spin within a spin can > have a precessional force imposed on it. A good > demonstration of this is what happens when a person > sitting on a revolving stool holds the axle of a > revolving bicycle wheel. If the revolving wheel is > initially vertical, and the person tilts that wheel to > a horizontal orientation, a torque is translated to > the stool so that the force applied to change the > angle of the spin itself is translated to cause the > person on the stool to rotate. Now suppose this stool > itself is filled with hundreds of gyroscopes on > gimbals so that the spin itself is allowed to change > its orientation of spin. And all of these gyroscopic > spins are oriented in random directional spins in > three dimensions.(an analogy for an unmagnetised > ferromagnetic material) Now suppose then we > externally rotate this stool holding all of these > random spins in three dimensions. Would it not be true > that some of the spins would change their direction of > spin due to precessional gyroscopic forces caused by > the external rotation, so that the external > spin,(macroscopic) influenced a majority of > internal(Molecular domain electron spins) to become > somewhat cohered spins in two dimensions intead of > three? The net result would be that the macroscopic > spin coheres > molcular gryscopic electron spins so that a side > effect of macroscopic ferrmagnetic spin on a disc like > structure is magnetism! > > In support of this thesis is the results of spinning > an alternator with an unenergized electromagnet field. > A 2 volt stator output that can enable a 1.5 Amp > consumption on a single shorted phase at a rotation > causing 480 hz were the results I obtained with a > smaller Delco Remy car alternator with the diodes > removed, all without the field even being energized. > In fact it may be somewhat amazing to see what > meausures must be taken so that zero power output is > a
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > > Michel Jullian wrote: >>>>> a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric potential >>>>> energy is decreasing somewhere, I'll let you find where :) >> ... >>> ...We want to know, lol! :-) >> >> Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial explanation was >> wrong, so it's just as well I kept it to myself ;-) >> >> Electric potential energy has nothing to do with the matter as I >> realized (my apologies for the misleading hint). Still it seemed >> obvious to me that _some_ potential energy had to be decreasing, >> since it takes work to bring the dipoles back to their non-aligned >> initial state. Same reasoning as in the non-rotating case where >> magnets are just attracted to each other, similar to a mass falling >> off a table as previously mentioned by Stephen. This led me to >> Googling "magnetic potential energy", and bingo, there is such a >> thing, and it decreases all right when magnetic dipoles align! > > Yes, I knew that. In fact the formula which you quoted below, > > -mu B > > applies to linear potential energy as well, which the authors apparently > didn't mention. A dipole in a nonuniform field feels a linear force > which is equal to > > gradient(mu B) It makes sense. > > and in any field it feels a torque which is > > mu B > > and these are easily seen to be the negatives of the gradient of the > potential and partial of the potential with respect to the dipole angle, > respectively. > > I actually said this 'way back before the beginning of this discussion, > and again part way through... Sorry I hadn't followed more closely the discussions, it would have saved me reinventing the wheel :) The set of formulae you quote above should be complete enough for any derivations or simulations Paul or others may have in mind. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric potential energy is decreasing somewhere, I'll let you find where :) > ... >> ...We want >> to know, lol! :-) > > Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial explanation was wrong, so it's just as well I kept it to myself ;-) No problem! > Electric potential energy has nothing to do with the matter as I realized (my apologies for the misleading hint). > Still it seemed obvious to me that _some_ potential energy had to be decreasing, since it takes work to bring > the dipoles back to their non-aligned initial state. Same reasoning as in the non-rotating case where magnets > are just attracted to each other, similar to a mass falling off a table as previously mentioned by Stephen. > This led me to Googling "magnetic potential energy", and bingo, there is such a thing, and it decreases > all right when magnetic dipoles align! > > You'll find a good explanation at the url below, > for the case where one small dipole swivels inside another, larger one (see their > drawing for the geometry). In this simple case no linear motion is involved, just the > rotation to alignment we are concerned with, very much like a compass needle aligns with > the Earth's magnetic field without being pulled as a whole one way or another. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magpot.html : > > "A magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field will possess potential energy which > depends upon its orientation with respect to the magnetic field. Since magnetic sources > are inherently dipole sources which can be visualized as a current loop with current I > and area A, the energy is usually expressed in terms of the magnetic dipole moment: > > U = -µ . B where µ=IA > > The energy is expressed as a scalar product, and implies that the energy is lowest when > the magnetic moment is aligned with the magnetic field..." > > Therefore if the small magnet swivels without friction it should oscillate like a pendulum > around the aligned position, with energy being similarly transferred back and forth between > potential energy (max at max disalignment) and kinetic energy plus field energy (max at alignment). > Variation of the latter can probably be neglected in the small magnet vs big magnet case, > just like one neglects the complete system's gravitational field energy variation when > deriving the pendulum's motion in the Earth's gravitational field. I mentioned that early on in the discussion that such a dipole oscillates back and forth due to momentum and magnetic attraction until friction dissipates such energy. Although, once again, that is beside the point. The point is energy is coming from something ***while the two dipoles are accelerating angularly***. Below I'll describe the process once again. > Energy conserved in standard physics, unsurprisingly. No, no, no. We're *not* talking about the energy conservation of the dipole oscillating back and forth. We are *not* talking about permanently removing energy from the electron spin. As previously stated, such a process is temporary so long as the dipoles remain magnetically aligned and at their separation distance. Again, consider two magnets initially at rest and magnetically unaligned. The two dipoles then accelerate angularly to magnetic alignment when released, thus gaining KE and an increase in net magnetic field. Did you know that when you apply a magnetic field to magnetic material at curie temperature there is a significant increase in temperature (over 4 C)? When on intensely studies magnetic materials the reason becomes clear as to why. At curie temperature the magnetic dipole moments are for the most part unaligned. When the field is applied the dipoles align. Again, the process of aligning dipoles adds energy. So even the electron gains KE during such a process. We are trying to find the source of that energy. Again, if we *knew* nothing about an electro-magnet or air coil then at best we could merely say, "Oh, well, it's just potential energy. So we can't say which came first." Fortunately we now have technology that indeed reveals that such a process requires energy. We have technology that can create magnetic fields on demand-- the electro-magnet. The electro-magnet clearly reveals that it consumes energy from the current source while the two dipoles are rotating to alignment. Therefore we can no longer nonchalantly ignore and brush off such an issue. Same goes for gravity. Presently we cannot generate a gravity field on demand; i.e., an electro-gravity coil. When a ball is moved upward away from Earth we are adding PE to the system. Presently most physicists just nonchalantly accept the existence of PE, as it's quite possibly out of our reach to understand where that actual potential energy went. Although, lets say we have technology to create an electro-gravity
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric potential energy is decreasing somewhere, I'll let you find where :) ... ...We want to know, lol! :-) Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial explanation was wrong, so it's just as well I kept it to myself ;-) Electric potential energy has nothing to do with the matter as I realized (my apologies for the misleading hint). Still it seemed obvious to me that _some_ potential energy had to be decreasing, since it takes work to bring the dipoles back to their non-aligned initial state. Same reasoning as in the non-rotating case where magnets are just attracted to each other, similar to a mass falling off a table as previously mentioned by Stephen. This led me to Googling "magnetic potential energy", and bingo, there is such a thing, and it decreases all right when magnetic dipoles align! Yes, I knew that. In fact the formula which you quoted below, -mu B applies to linear potential energy as well, which the authors apparently didn't mention. A dipole in a nonuniform field feels a linear force which is equal to gradient(mu B) and in any field it feels a torque which is mu B and these are easily seen to be the negatives of the gradient of the potential and partial of the potential with respect to the dipole angle, respectively. I actually said this 'way back before the beginning of this discussion, and again part way through...
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
> >> a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric > >> potential energy is decreasing somewhere, > >> I'll let you find where :) ... > ...We want > to know, lol! :-) Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial explanation was wrong, so it's just as well I kept it to myself ;-) Electric potential energy has nothing to do with the matter as I realized (my apologies for the misleading hint). Still it seemed obvious to me that _some_ potential energy had to be decreasing, since it takes work to bring the dipoles back to their non-aligned initial state. Same reasoning as in the non-rotating case where magnets are just attracted to each other, similar to a mass falling off a table as previously mentioned by Stephen. This led me to Googling "magnetic potential energy", and bingo, there is such a thing, and it decreases all right when magnetic dipoles align! You'll find a good explanation at the url below, for the case where one small dipole swivels inside another, larger one (see their drawing for the geometry). In this simple case no linear motion is involved, just the rotation to alignment we are concerned with, very much like a compass needle aligns with the Earth's magnetic field without being pulled as a whole one way or another. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magpot.html : "A magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field will possess potential energy which depends upon its orientation with respect to the magnetic field. Since magnetic sources are inherently dipole sources which can be visualized as a current loop with current I and area A, the energy is usually expressed in terms of the magnetic dipole moment: U = -µ . B where µ=IA The energy is expressed as a scalar product, and implies that the energy is lowest when the magnetic moment is aligned with the magnetic field..." Therefore if the small magnet swivels without friction it should oscillate like a pendulum around the aligned position, with energy being similarly transferred back and forth between potential energy (max at max disalignment) and kinetic energy plus field energy (max at alignment). Variation of the latter can probably be neglected in the small magnet vs big magnet case, just like one neglects the complete system's gravitational field energy variation when deriving the pendulum's motion in the Earth's gravitational field. Energy conserved in standard physics, unsurprisingly. Michel - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > - Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > > > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>> Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies > are > >> increasing in the process. Is this > >> a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric > >> potential energy is decreasing somewhere, > >> I'll let you find where :) > >>> Michel > >> > >> The old "I know, but I don't want to tell you" > trick? > >> :) > > > > Not at all, I will give the answer eventually, say > on Sunday if nobody finds it before, > which I doubt very much. The fun is in the searching, > I have given away far too much > already :) > > > > Your variations don't change the issue BTW, so > let's stick to your original experiment. > > > > Michel > > > Michel, > > Why don't you tell us now. It's probably some effect > we're not aware of or know very > little about. If it is such an effect then I'll plug > it in my latest simulation program > and see what happens. > > I'm no QM expert, which is why I asked dozen+ QM > physicists, but do you know something > they're not aware of? Why wait for Sunday? We want > to know, lol! :-) > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > http://new.mail.yahoo.com >
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
The books must always balance in double entry bookkeeping. Double entry bookkeeping was devised well before classical mechanics. It may have given credence to concepts like the conservation energy. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul wrote: > Variation #2: > And the final blow to your theory (no offense > intended) is the fact that two electromagnet > dipoles that accelerate toward each other > ***consumes*** energy from the current source, > especially if you negatively or positively charge both > electromagnets. This clearly > demonstrates the entire *net* process requires energy. > ... or that for this instance of acceleration, a supply of "energy" is not required by nature. Must nature require energy whenever we require energy? Must nature always mirror our classical/quantum mechanical fantasies of her? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > And we don't > have any sufficiently whizzy bar magnets here to > let me test it > macroscopically. There you go again with your cigarette dipoles. ;-) OK, I finally got the point WRT the shape... > > Ummm h so it is, the field strength ratio at > the end versus the side > is something like 2:1, and, if the dipole is > allowed to align with the > field, the net force it feels is always in the > direction of increasing > field strength. For a point charge it is. Of course if for example the dipole is 1 cm in diameter and you're testing the field right up against the wire millimeters away then it doesn't make sense you'll get 2:1 ratio. Did you try to field dipole moment calculator? http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopcalculator.htm Yes, I took a look at it, but I already knew the shape of the dipole field, at least for small dipoles. In geometrized cgs units it's http://www.physicsinsights.org/dipole_field_1.html#eqn-16 which is pretty clear. The primary point I missed was that my "mental model" of a tiny dipole wasn't spherically symmetric, so rotations also involved major changes in |r|.
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Paul wrote: >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> [snip] >> > > They attract until they are perfectly aligned NS >> NS. >> > >> > When they're aligned >> > >> > N >> > | >> > | >> > | >> > | >> > S >> > N >> > | >> > | >> > | >> > | >> > S >> > >> > they can flip (rotate) so that they're aligned >> > >> > NS >> > || >> > || >> > || >> > || >> > SN >> >> >> Sure if you ***add*** energy Stephen. That takes >> energy. I have written far too many simulations to know. I have seen >> physical grids of >> permanent magnets on swivels and you are completely wrong on this. >> Magnet dipole moments >> prefer NSNS. > > Really?? Sigh > > That's what I get for relying on intuition. It seems intuition is probably the most important tool in theoretical research. Einstein spent his entire life trying to find an intuitive theory. :-) A good process seems to be intuition followed by theory followed by experimentation. > I certainly had not done > any calculations to show which way they should end up -- the potential > energy and force calculations by themselves don't say. And we don't > have any sufficiently whizzy bar magnets here to let me test it > macroscopically. (But see below in this note -- uh, oh, it sure looks > like you're right...) There you go again with your cigarette dipoles. ;-) Who knows, perhaps the cigarette is the true shape of the electron, but I doubt it. QM claims the electron has no physic extend beyond the Poynting vector. > > BTW, your drawings of >> dipoles are way out of proportion. You are drawing cigarettes. An >> electron is not in the >> shape of a cigarette, lol. > > Well, yeah, they're kind of stubby, aren't they. Not quite like a bar > magnet, not at all... > > >> > It increases versus a single magnet, that's true. But compared with >> > two distant magnets? I'm not so sure; we need to >> ask: >> >> No, the net magnetic field increases from two nearby >> fully aligned magnets as compared to if they were far apart. >> >> >> > Does the field increase or decrease as they're >> drawn apart along a >> > line? >> >> More of the fields overlap as they approach each other >> in fully alignment. > > So it appears. And certainly the result is far larger field energy than > the half-aligned case, however it may compare with the case where > they're far apart. Here's perhaps a simple method of viewing the issue. Consider two loops of current carrying wire in free space. Consider the fact the dipoles will slowly dissipate their energy by means of radiation resistance; i.e., dipole KE gained is lost over time. Ultimately the wires will end up side by side, like two donuts hugging each other. Remember currents flowing in the same direction attract. All the current carrying wire cares about is getting as close to the other wire as possible. The closest orientation is face to face, thus nearly forming one wire loop. >> > [ snip ] >> > >> > > Two aligned electromagnets do not repel. They >> > > *attract*. >> > >> > Arrgh. We're both right. If they're end-to-end >> they attract when >> > they're aligned. If they're side by side they >> attract when they're >> > misaligned. >> >> Correct, but what you seem to miss is the front >> magnetic density is twice as compared to the sides, > > Ummm h so it is, the field strength ratio at the end versus the side > is something like 2:1, and, if the dipole is allowed to align with the > field, the net force it feels is always in the direction of increasing > field strength. For a point charge it is. Of course if for example the dipole is 1 cm in diameter and you're testing the field right up against the wire millimeters away then it doesn't make sense you'll get 2:1 ratio. Did you try to field dipole moment calculator? http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopcalculator.htm Regards, Paul Lowrance Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [regarding NS-NS versus N/S S/N alignment preference:] And we don't have any sufficiently whizzy bar magnets here to let me test it macroscopically. More fool me. Bar magnets are the wrong shape, but we do have a set of magnetic marbles, and I already knew that they align nose to nose, not side to side. Just didn't think through the implications. Sigh...
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Paul wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip] > > They attract until they are perfectly aligned NS NS. > > When they're aligned > > N > | > | > | > | > S > N > | > | > | > | > S > > they can flip (rotate) so that they're aligned > > NS > || > || > || > || > SN Sure if you ***add*** energy Stephen. That takes energy. I have written far too many simulations to know. I have seen physical grids of permanent magnets on swivels and you are completely wrong on this. Magnet dipole moments prefer NSNS. Really?? Sigh That's what I get for relying on intuition. I certainly had not done any calculations to show which way they should end up -- the potential energy and force calculations by themselves don't say. And we don't have any sufficiently whizzy bar magnets here to let me test it macroscopically. (But see below in this note -- uh, oh, it sure looks like you're right...) > BTW, your drawings of dipoles are way out of proportion. You are drawing cigarettes. An electron is not in the shape of a cigarette, lol. Well, yeah, they're kind of stubby, aren't they. Not quite like a bar magnet, not at all... > It increases versus a single magnet, that's true. But compared with > two distant magnets? I'm not so sure; we need to ask: No, the net magnetic field increases from two nearby fully aligned magnets as compared to if they were far apart. > Does the field increase or decrease as they're drawn apart along a > line? More of the fields overlap as they approach each other in fully alignment. So it appears. And certainly the result is far larger field energy than the half-aligned case, however it may compare with the case where they're far apart. > [ snip ] > > > Two aligned electromagnets do not repel. They > > *attract*. > > Arrgh. We're both right. If they're end-to-end they attract when > they're aligned. If they're side by side they attract when they're > misaligned. Correct, but what you seem to miss is the front magnetic density is twice as compared to the sides, Ummm h so it is, the field strength ratio at the end versus the side is something like 2:1, and, if the dipole is allowed to align with the field, the net force it feels is always in the direction of increasing field strength. Hmmm hmmm hmmm.. this seems to imply pretty strongly that you're right about how two permanent magnets should like to line up, too. I hate it when I'm wrong. which is why the PM's have less entropy in full alignment as compared to half alignment. Sorry, my thermo is very weak -- second semester freshman year introductory physical chemistry course level, at best. So this statement goes over my head. > > That's backwards. :) As they attract and move closer > > there's back EMF, which consumes > > energy from the battery. > > Yes, no matter the alignment, we "pay" for the work done as they pull > themselves together, by pumping in electrical energy. Yes, but again that is not the point. We are trying to figure out where the energy comes from such a gain in both kinetic and magnetic energy. When you pull the magnets apart you are adding energy, but to what? This is still a mystery, one day to be solved when humanity learns exactly what sustains the electrons existence. Who know, may the energy comes from God. :-)
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies are >> increasing in the process. Is this >> a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric >> potential energy is decreasing somewhere, >> I'll let you find where :) >>> Michel >> >> The old "I know, but I don't want to tell you" trick? >> :) > > Not at all, I will give the answer eventually, say on Sunday if nobody finds it before, which I doubt very much. The fun is in the searching, I have given away far too much already :) > > Your variations don't change the issue BTW, so let's stick to your original experiment. > > Michel Michel, Why don't you tell us now. It's probably some effect we're not aware of or know very little about. If it is such an effect then I'll plug it in my latest simulation program and see what happens. I'm no QM expert, which is why I asked dozen+ QM physicists, but do you know something they're not aware of? Why wait for Sunday? We want to know, lol! :-) Regards, Paul Lowrance Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
> > Well not quite entirely, the current loop > consisting in the orbiting motion has got to > contribute _some_ magnetic dipole moment to the > atom, > however small this effect may be > compared to that of the rotating motion. > > > That's very true. Most of the field in ferromagnetic > atoms comes from intrinsic electron > spin, not orbital spin. For example, in Alnico 5 > 94% > comes from intrinsic electron spin. > In Sm2Co17 63% from intrinsic electron spin. > Paramagnetic materials is another story, > but it's relatively weak. > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance Hi Paul, some interesting facts here on (ferro)magnetism. I am not well schooled in physics, but I remember reading a book on magnetism where this fact was brought on, that magnetism was created both by "cohered" orbital electron orbits, and also the actual spin of the electron while in orbit. (Here refered to as intrinsic spin} I think it was also noted that it was the single "unpaired" electron orbit responsible for the magnetism due to orbital spin. For every electron in orbit, the magnetic force it creates reacts via lenz law to create a magnetic force in opposition; with the net result that every clockwise electron spin is paired with a counterclockwise spin, so the net effect of these two spins are magnetic cancellation. Thus ferromagnetic materials should have an ODD number of electron orbits so that the one unpaired spin can be "cohered" to all spin at the same three dimensional angle among a domain sample of many of these spins. I am somewhat confused here, are the magnetic dipoles here referred to a set of these opposite spinning electron orbits? My next question regards macroscopic spin. If we understand gyroscopic laws a spin within a spin can have a precessional force imposed on it. A good demonstration of this is what happens when a person sitting on a revolving stool holds the axle of a revolving bicycle wheel. If the revolving wheel is initially vertical, and the person tilts that wheel to a horizontal orientation, a torque is translated to the stool so that the force applied to change the angle of the spin itself is translated to cause the person on the stool to rotate. Now suppose this stool itself is filled with hundreds of gyroscopes on gimbals so that the spin itself is allowed to change its orientation of spin. And all of these gyroscopic spins are oriented in random directional spins in three dimensions.(an analogy for an unmagnetised ferromagnetic material) Now suppose then we externally rotate this stool holding all of these random spins in three dimensions. Would it not be true that some of the spins would change their direction of spin due to precessional gyroscopic forces caused by the external rotation, so that the external spin,(macroscopic) influenced a majority of internal(Molecular domain electron spins) to become somewhat cohered spins in two dimensions intead of three? The net result would be that the macroscopic spin coheres molcular gryscopic electron spins so that a side effect of macroscopic ferrmagnetic spin on a disc like structure is magnetism! In support of this thesis is the results of spinning an alternator with an unenergized electromagnet field. A 2 volt stator output that can enable a 1.5 Amp consumption on a single shorted phase at a rotation causing 480 hz were the results I obtained with a smaller Delco Remy car alternator with the diodes removed, all without the field even being energized. In fact it may be somewhat amazing to see what meausures must be taken so that zero power output is available from a spinning AC alternator whose (primary) field has not been energized. It is seen that if the DC current is sent through the field in one preferred direction, more stator voltage results, and this is logical since one direction of field current would establish a (electrically induced)magnetic field in harmony with the pre-existant rotationally created magnetic field. If the direction of the field current was made in the opposite direction to oppose the rotationally created magnetic field, the output of the alternator can be made to approach zero. Amazingly we must send energy into the field to make the alternator quit producing an output voltage. If the incorrect direction of current through the field were then increased beyond the zero output margin, the alternator once again produces voltage, but somewhat more innefficiently then if the correct direction of DC field current were used. When this was done, and then the field amperage again reduced to the point where it formerly cancelled the rotational magnetism so that zero output is shown from the stator outputs, now it delivers a different result of delivering power, so that we might conclude that rotation itself preserves as a sort of memory its previous electromagnetic influence. These effects were previously elaborated in some of my yahoo group postings; Amazing Rotational Magnetism Tests Sun Sep 19, 2004 h
Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > > >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies are >> increasing in the process. Is this >> a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric >> potential energy is decreasing somewhere, >> I'll let you find where :) >>> Michel >> >> The old "I know, but I don't want to tell you" trick? >> :) > > Not at all, I will give the answer eventually, say on Sunday if nobody finds it before, which I doubt very much. The fun is in the searching, I have given away far too much already :) > > Your variations don't change the issue BTW, so let's stick to your original experiment. > > Michel We're not saying it violates the conservation of energy, but rather asking where the energy comes from. Anything's possible so we'll have to wait for your answer Sunday unless someone discovers it. It's probably a QM answer, but in asking over a dozen QM physicists none to date have found the answer. Stephen, do you have any clue what Michel might be talking about? Regards, Paul Lowrance Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
