Jones,
If it performed that well, then it would be interesting. That amount of power extracted over such a long time period would represent a large amount of energy. I tend to think of the energy stored in a magnet as being relatively small since you can take an unmagnetized piece of material and magnetize it with a modest amount of input energy. Since I have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there is the same amount of energy available as is needed to achieve that state. I need to observe a source that is depleted as work is extracted. In cold fusion, the mass of the reacting elements is depleted. According to the old famous equation the energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared a relatively tiny amount of mass can supply a large amount of energy. The mass increase due to a magnetic field being generated is incredibly small and it can apparently be extracted as suggested by these types of motors. The main problem is that the magnet energy must be inputted prior to extraction. In this case you have a device that behaves more like a battery than one that frees vast reserves of untapped stored energy. It would be wonderful to see one of these motors deliver the performance that you suggest may be possible and I will change my mind quickly if that occurs. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 10:54 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down Dave, What if it runs for 1000hrs at an average power of 100 watts ? Based on what he has told others, temperedby the reality of grossly overestimating the power output - this could be possible. It may not be ideal but itwould be new physics and it would probably have commercial value. From:David Roberson Jones, If all they are doing is draining energy from stored magnets thenthat will run out fairly soon. Most are expecting to see a device thatruns essentially forever. At least that is what I am looking for. Dave -----OriginalMessage----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 7:42 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down It is a surprise that there is quite a bit of negativity on vortex for this demo. That skepticism could be related to the 5 or 6 other similar claims on Sterling Allan's PESN site which show signs of scam or trickery, but what is specific problem with this one ? ... A noted professor (Duarte) has been allowed to check for hidden batteries or motor - and says there is no trickery. Magnetic fields store energy, not a lot of energy compared to chemical, but it takes energy to align magnetic polarities and this amounts to stored spin-energy. I’m not sure that the energy density of a magnet can be compared to chemical energy from a battery in a meaningful way - yet it is still stored energy. If the magnetic field itself can used for "fuel" in the sense of energy extraction, and this demo indicates that it can – then when we recognize that it is notably NOT a heat engine, we can rationalize the apparent low energy density. If the operation is not covered by the laws of thermodynamics, then the work which was done could simply have been done in more efficient manner, to wit: magnetic spin going to a "spin sink" which is torque, avoiding heat as the intermediary. Most chemical reactions, as in a battery - operate as heat engines. Yildiz's motor produces almost no heat (only friction at the bearings). But the system could still be conservative in the context of another kind of input - “order” going to “disorder” in the magnetic alignment. This could mean that providing magnetic alignment is where stored energy enters the system and torque is where it leaves. Subjectively we assign a much greater value to torque than to heat. Energy per unit volume, or energy density has the same physical units as pressure, and the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as a physical pressure. This is relatively low thermally, even when magnets express an intrinsic static force which is high between each other, and mimics pressure. Given that the pressure of opposing fields in magnetism is large, that should be a clue that we are missing the important variable - spin. Enthalpy can derive from ordered systems going efficiently to disorder, as in demagnetization or from an input such as ZPE. In short, thermal energy density is the best known measure of the volumetric enthalpy of a system but it is not the only determinant of it. If ZPE alone is responsible, then perhaps there can be work done with no demagnetization, but the simplest explanation for an energy anomaly in a "magmo" is that we are seeing “order-to-disorder” enthalpy of a non-thermodynamic type: spin going to a spin-sink, which exhibits a higher-value for of energy - torque. Jones
