The balls display an excellent example of gyroscopic motion. Rotation about
the axis connecting the balls results in a vector of angular momentum along
that axis. Movement of that axis by rotation of the balls upon the surface
causes a torque to be exerted which raises the connecting axis to an angle
above the horizontal. You can see a similar effect in the way a top behaves as
it become vertical when spun up.
The total interaction among the several rotation axis and the friction on the
surface is quite complex. It would be interesting to obtain a complete
analysis of this system.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 1:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
The link to the Hurricane balls slow motion movie is also interesting. The two
fused balls start out rotating with each ball on the surface but shift to a
position where only one ball is on the surface and the other attached ball
rotates somewhat above the surface. It looks like a coupling with the
gravitational field which causes a step change in the rotating positions of the
two balls with one touching the surface and one above that surface.
Strange.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: H Veeder
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Harry and Jones--
You two do what I would call out of the box thinking on this issue--I
wonder where Axil is. More thoughts:
1. There have been two different coupling experiments I seen--one where the
balls are fused and the other where the balls are magnetically coupled.
They both represented a connected mostly Fe ferro-magnetic structure. The
rotation clearly creates a rotating magnetic field I think. It also would
cause a certain electric charge to be established in some pattern on the
outer surfaces of the balls at an equal voltage. At some point or points
inside the metal surface the electric field should be 0. A conduction
sphere distributes charge--electrons for example--over its surface so as to
create a null coulomb (electric) field inside the surface. What happens
when there are 2 conducting spheres attached together is another thing.
When you add a magnetic field and some apparent electric current or megaton
currents, you have even a more complex condition.
2. The magnetic field must be rotating with its own rotational energy and
angular momentum/inertia. What is this inertia and how does it add or
subtract from the to the mass rotating inertia? It seems the system must
be coupled by this spinning. It seems there is a collapse of the spin
coupling when the spinning slows. (There was an abrupt stop as noted by
the researcher that demonstrated the fused balls.)
3. What happens to the angular momentum of the rolling balls in the
magnetic coupling experiment. It seems to be converted to the angular
momentum of the system of balls once they come together and it seems to
happen pretty fast. The net angular of the two balls as they approach each
other would be essentially 0 since the J vector points in an opposite
direction for each ball.
4. A high speed moving picture of this would be interesting and also
something to monitor the change of the magnetic fields with time would be
interesting. How fast are are the field changed? Is there any other way
to investigate the nuclear magnetic conditions in this system of rotating
balls.
Hurricane balls in slow motion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZwuPyBzp20
5. What happens if the balls are gold instead of iron? Or Pd? Or Ni?
6. What would happen if once the balls are rotating fast you put another
conducting surface around to modify the magnetic fields.
This video appears to show the spin rate of hurricane balls can be increased
by an electric coil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5VfGpV6tWI
7. Is there a coupling to the Earth's magnetic or gravitational field that
happens in steps or macroscopic quantum jumps considering the abrupt
stopping of the rotation. Or is this merely a loss of energy via an abrupt
change in the coeff. of friction?
I think I have a good science fair project for a grandson.
and for yourself ? ;-)
A little high tech monitoring equipment is all that is necessary. Maybe NI
would be interested in loaning the instruments. A transient change in the
temperature of the ball and the surface upon which they spin would be nice
to know to understand the issue of friction changes. An evacuated chamber
would be warranted to eliminate the issue with loss of energy via
stirring the air around the rotating balls.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: H Veeder
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
From: H Veeder
two steel ball bearings welded together
are a metaphorical
cooper-pair, so to speak... raising another weird question: is there something
about spherical-pairing alone, which is special - at any level?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvq8laPb498
Nice
. two magnetic balls roll together and their linear motion is
converted into rotational motion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIfTKBVI6ZQ
Thank, Harry - this video is another good visual example of a larger
phenomenon involving pairing - since we can better visualize how linear
motion is converted to rotational naturally. This is somewhat along the
lines of how Bob Cook wants to fashion the LENR reaction, with the
conversion of kinetic energy of reactants being spin-coupled, in the
end.
However, IMO - this process does not require actual fusion to be
anomalously energetic. And coupling would never hide gamma rays, if
there was a nuclear reaction, so essentially coupling cannot be related
to permanent fusion, since the energies are too high.
Suppose the fusion energy which is normally expressed as gamma rays in a
very high temperature plasma environment is divided between rotational
kinetic energy and much lower energy rays in a condensed matter
environment. Since not all the gamma energy would go into rotation the
newly formed nucleus would be stable and the rotational kinetic energy of
the nucleus would heat the lattice by way of its rotating fields.
However, moderate excess energy well above chemical but less than
nuclear, requires only the same basic force which keeps electrons from
interacting with protons to begin with. That force is the zero point
field. Puthoff and associates have elegantly framed the details of this
kind of energy transfer, but until recently, there was doubt that ZPE
could be easily converted to energy at a macro scale.
The armchair theorist can imagine that the two balls are protons at a
distance, and when they are accelerated together, say during the
collapse of molecule of H2 due to electron degeneracy, Pauli exclusion
keeps the two from fusing, and yet their linear motion is converted to
spin. Extraordinary spin such as is the visual effect of the
videos.
In fact, just prior to this happening with protons, the two electrons
of H2 could have joined into a temporary cooper pair of electrons,
which function to accelerate the electrons towards each other. Thus one
cooper-pair starts the LENR reaction and another finishes it, but no
permanent fusion takes place. The transient electron pairing only needs
to happen for a femtosecond to set the stage for this form of
LENR).
This model serves to explain, to an large extent, why Ni-H LENR can be
so robust with no permanent nuclear reaction at all since all of the
resultant high spin is coupled back to magnons which are easier to
couple within a ferromagnetic lattice than within an exciton. When the
exciton is ferromagnetic itself, the reaction is boosted and ZPE is
converted to thermal energy.
Jones
One further point about pairing of spheres being special or natural
or favored at many levels of geometry. This goes beyond cooper pairs -
to cosmology.
In our solar system, out sun is a single star, and consequently humans
are misled into thinking that most stars are singlets.
In fact that is not true - and only about 15% of stars in our galaxy
are singlets. 85% of stars are found as binary or multiple
arrangements.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec10.html
A stable pair of nucleons or a stable pair of stars both require energy
to pull them apart.
Harry
