We here see to many fantasies.
Russ Georges experiments did not produce over unity. The energy can be
calculated by simple fusion physics rule/laws.
In classic dimensions magnetic forces always lead to a minimum
configuration and no perpetual motion is possible. Only atoms can do this.
Please also keep in mind that 4 potential math (Higgs field) is only
math and has nothing to do with real physics. You can never fold a
vector potential time like as magnetic force/mass is already at light speed.
To explain new effects you need new physics. Any reference to standard
model only shows how clueless people (Axil) are.
If you really (deeply) want to understand why the standard model math is
nonsense please study the work of Farhad:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi
He is a math prof at UNI Konstanz.
J.W.
On 25.06.2021 03:45, Vibrator ! wrote:
Magnetic 'over' and 'under' unity interactions are spectrum conditions
of the same basic effects of magnets doing what they always do - there
IS no deus ex machina when we throw back the curtains and see how the
trick was achieved!
EM OU - if not OU per se - is nothing so exotic as mundane dynamics,
properly observed; a wood / trees issue.
I'll give two familiar examples; the first a thermodynamic loss, the
second a gain:
- consider a small NdFeB attracting over some air gap towards a lump
of pig iron; the latter having significant Sv (entropy viscosity per
Rutherford)
- if the displacement completes in less time than the responding rise
in B within the rough iron sample, then we end up with the neo stuck
to the iron, while inside the material, the harder-pinned domains
continue to yield to the increasing alignment of their neighbors
We could monitor these avalanches by amping up the sample and
listening in on the Barkhausen jumps; when they cease, it's cooked,
bashically..
- if we now prise the neo off and return it to its starting position,
we'll be performing more work (F*d) on the input stroke, than the
interaction output when the samples attracted together..
So the interaction's I/O-asymmetric because the induced field density
and resulting force increased during the resting period, AFTER the
output stroke had already completed, but BEFORE pulling 'em apart again.
We thus did more mechanical work than the EM field (vacuum potential)
did! This is mechanical under-unity - we could cycle this interaction
all day and calorimetry will show the missing input energy as lost -
ie. all of it did mechanical work pulling the magnets apart, so none
of it is 'missing', as such.. we simply didn't get as much work out
of the field as we put in, as it wasn't fully formed yet..
Got that? Thermodynamic (ie. non-dissipative) loss, from a
time-variant passive magnetic interaction. 'CoE', read it and weep..
Now for the gain scenario:
- two magnets stacked vertically, stuck to the rim of a horizontal
rotor, opposite poles facing outwards (ie. in the radial plane)
- solenoid stator with a hi-mu core, facing inwards
- both magnets attract equally to the stator core, applying positive
torque to the rotor
- as they reach TDC (min airgap), the solenoid's fired, applying one
pole outwards
- ..rotor mags are thus equally attracted and repelled - ie. zero net
torque - while counter-EMF's induced in the coil by the retreating
magnets are likewise mutually destructive
Fine-tune stator/rotor level with a micrometer head and a 'scope on
the CEMF.
- punchline: magnetic F*d is time-invariant, whereas resistance
heating - the primary input workload - is a time-dependent function of
Joule's 2nd law for heat (Q=I^2rt) and RPM, bashically - ie. per cycle
input energy (duty cycle) is inverse to speed.. so the faster it
spins, the less input heating work for the same magnetic output work.
Et voila, electro-mechanical OU.
I could alternatively describe a purely passive gain (the Kinetron
toy) - but this is all courtesy of Steorn of course (Sean Mc's
"where'd the energy go?" poser and the v8.3 EM Orbo respectively).
The point here however is the conspicuous absence of any exotic or
even particularly unconventional physics or principles - in both cases
it's just the basic laws of induction doing what they ALWAYS do, all
the time everywhere.
Time-variant asymmetric EM interactions simply play Noether symmetries
to create divergent inertial frames, opening the system to source or
sink +/- h-bar to vacuum.. but ALL EM interactions are vacuum
interactions, period.. equitable or not.
In the fist instance tho, it's just force and time picking up the bill.
Understand this - that OU is tractable and tangible by familiar terms
(MUST be, for heavens sake!) - and any notion that it might require
recourse to exotic new physics surely melts away; the REAL problem,
surely, was that it was previously simply INTRACTABLE as a concept;
how to even get a handle on it? 1+1 is not 3, right? So there HAD
to be 'something else', right? Something that could square the
circle.. Except, what if that 'something else' was just the old and
familiar, yet in a novel light?
In 1712, Bessler worked out how to gain the same amount of momentum
from gravity and time each cycle, for the same internal work done, in
spite of rising system RPM.. and the fact that KE squares with speed,
while his net input work was simply summing as the per-cycle constant
times the number of elapsed cycles. Mechanical OU, eighteenth-century
style-e, by fixing the unit energy cost of momentum from G*t to a
speed-invariant value.
Simply playing the game, by the rules, in full observance of all
conservation laws, and Noether's theorem. THAT is the key to
over-unity..! (and whatever more besides..)
So, not against new physics here.. not on an anti-QFT diatribe or
anything... just don't see that the terms of reference of EM OU needs
to 'go there' in the first place; it's BASIC stuff, bread'n'butter
not cordon bleu. HAS to be; matters of basic thermodynamics,
reference frames, and the distinctions between 'open' and 'closed'
systems.
/rant
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:40 AM Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I never could understand how magnets could produce overunity
effects until the Higgs mode has turned up in anisotropic magnets.
To refresh our memories from a old post from Russ Gerorge as follows:
I had the privilege of standing in the parking lot of the hotel
where Chukanov had his demo running for several hours in the
company of Martin Fleischmann fusing some of our little grey cells
over that device. Chukanov answered or at least responded to every
single question we posed to him and we sent many his way. It was a
fascinating and captivating demo. Martin was the kind of man who
had insatiable curiosity and not a mean molecule in his body and
showed it in his sincere interest and professorial manner.
Chukanov sent us both away with several large chunks of his metal.
Meanwhile the hundreds of ICCF conference attendees almost
entirely shunned the ‘parking lot demo’ and Chukanov, especially
the self-appointed high priest insiders of cold fusion. There was
little but derision and snide attacks behind Chukanov’s back at
the meeting.
After a couple hours in hot afternoon sun with Chukanov and his
machine Martin and I adjorned to the beach and floated for a long
time like basking whales chatting about this and that.
Somewhere in my collection of ‘cold fusion’ holy treasures I have
some of Chukanov’s SmCo5 metal. I think I will dig it out and see
if some of the recent ‘activation’ ideas make it work even better!
The SmCo5 magnet is an anisotropic magnet.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02498 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02498>
Stable Higgs mode in anisotropic quantum magnets
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:06 PM Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Science says that the Higgs field is like a pencil that is
standing on its point. Just the smallest perturbation can
cause the Higgs field to fail. This twisty nature of the Higgs
field could be the mechanism behind all the over-unity systems
that have shown up over the years. The Higgs mode is a new
behavior seen in condensed matter systems. The “Higgs Mode,”
otherwise known as the Higgs amplitude mode, is seen as a
close relative to the Higgs boson. Since the Higgs boson was
first theorized in the 1960s, the first physical discovery
came in 2012, and new quantum phenomena have since been
detected. In this post, we look at the new quantum state known
as the Higgs mode, the materials that the Higgs mode is found
in and the Higgs Boson itself.The Higgs amplitude mode is a
quantum phenomenon seen in materials and occurs when the
magnetic field of its electrons fluctuate in a way similar to
that of a Higgs boson. The materials that exhibit this
phenomenon can do so because the crystal structure of the
material enables the electrons to behave in such a way. When
the Higgs mode presents itself in these materials, the
material is often undergoing a quantum phase transition. The
Higgs mode has been detected in many different systems,
including in ultracold atomic gases, disordered
superconductors, and dimerized quantum magnets. However, in
many cases, the Higgs mode is unstable and decays. As such, it
has only been reported in a handful of publications. However,
some systems can support these quantum effects without
decaying. The earliest experimental observation was seen in
the Raman scattering of a superconducting charge-density wave
compound. The Raman spectra found an unexpected peak that was
later characterized as the presence of a Higgs mode.In a
system where the Higgs mode is presented, the Higgs field in
that system can be made to fail, in effect, the system topples
the Higgs field inside that system. When the Higgs field
fails, the forces of nature revert back to the way they were
before the Higgs field manifested in the universe. That time
is about 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. All sorts of weird
and unworldly behaviors then developed in those Higgs mode systems
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
