RC Macaulay wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote,
>
> >Though Huygens rejected Newton's theory of universal
> gravitation because it required action-at-a-distance, his own
mechanistic
> account failed to explain satisfactorily how subtle vortical-matter
> transferred centripetal conatus to ordinary matter."
>
Richard wrote,
>
> A further explanation is required to address the purpose and action of
> the " reverse vortex" present in a vortex. One of physics puzzling
> questions.
Thomas wrote,
Have you read any Russell? His model has vortexes, centripetal,
center seaking and centitifugal that expand.
Howdy Thomas,
Technically, the reverse vortex is not fully covered by Russell.
Consider the granddaddy of all earthly observable vortex.. the gulf of
Mexico style hurricane. The sustained eyewall may exceed 60 miles
diameter. A counterforce must exist.The low pressure formed in the eye
cannot reconcile with the surrounding forces produced. The assumption
that an unmeasurable "electro-magnetic event" takes place above, below
or globally opposite the eye has been offered. That thought would in
turn produce congecture that a spinning top must have a corresponding
unseen energy balance opposite. hmmm!! Such conjecture, not taken to
extreme ( tongue in cheek), may in turn offer some insight into why
LENR is so extremely difficult to reproduce. We may be looking for the
resultant in the wrong place.
Interesting comment Richard, Did you notice my post on the Respine? I'd
love to build one, so would the man who posted the vortex website.
Unfortunately, machines cost money, machines with a history of exploding
cost even more money. Does anyone know if the upper clouds in a
hurricane resemble the proposed Respine? Also does the observed energy
from a hurricane exceed the input energy? It is a conductive material,
water and salt moving in a magnetic field.
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! --
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---