Hello All! I greatly welcome any input on this, especially if you can point to me to 'hey this other guy had that idea'... and ya I'll forgive you if you give me a link to something you think is the same idea, and isn't; though I may do it sarcastically and mockingly even; but you ARE forgiven :)
Prereq: passing QM knowledge.... I don't have a way to introduce you fully to that.
I've been playing with spin as a basic 3D coordinate system for a couple years now; I found a lot of interesting features of that, and that does make it worthwhile to consider; but my friend told me I needed to find an application for it, that it should have some use, so I found this use... (The project is STFR Physics - Space Time Field Reactor; It was voted for that instead of FFFFR - Fast Faraday Force Field Reactor); it's not just this particular link, but there's a root to the project, and code, and demos, and even just enabled the discussion part, but feel free to just comment here :).
https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/blob/master/LHV_Theory.md
I can re-say what I've already said there? There's another paper; sometimes with similar words.
https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/blob/master/SpinProbabilities.md
In the second case, that was the 'before'. Spin Probabilities... so I learned what QM is, what the matrices are, how they work, what they do... and inverse-applied what I know of the Spin system I developed to just apply the math more directly, and get a computation of QM predictions for real hidden variables. And then played with that applying them with multiplication to get probability stuff... and noted that in the spin probabilities.
Then I transitioned and threw out the book, and just went with, okay what does the simulation tell me? What does the math tell me? (What Simulation? )
Oh I started this project to use a thing called 'Spin Axis' which doesn't exist as *A* term in QM, rather it's a combination of terms. So I started with, okay photons have a spin axis, that (when I started) didn't change over time as it was being transmitted, but I know that's not the case, and time lag between measurements loses correlation. Anyhow, detectors then have a alignment axis, and obviously the dot product of the spin axis with the detector is what determines if it's up/down along that (or depending on the detector, if it's up/down or left/right) (and really, the Stern Gerlach Device (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment) measures left-right, by separating them up and down along the magnetic axis... but that's just an annoying thing like positive current).
Anyhow, so I built a simulator, and got results, and went to correlate the results, and I ended up with a different ratio than QM predicts, but within 3%. I do have a solid math explanation for mine also; there's images and explations above, I even made a interactive demo of the graph. I'm certain with a little more mathy things I could justify it futher with a +/- delta differential sort of view (or maybe use Euler's Dual numbers, and do +/-e :) )
(I'm going to ramble a bit here, it doesn't matter)
The end is simpler than it seems '1-(x/(2-x))=P(x)` where `B+A=2` and `A=x` and `B=2-x`. What's X, A, blah? What's the result? X is a ratio from 0 to 1 of results that were positive or negative. It is made of (a+b=1) parts; which is then confusing, because I said (A+B=2), and indeed the A and B parts are really made of (a+b) parts... (sorry I'm still thinking this through); and it's words I haven't said before really.
(A/C-B/C)/(B/C) makes the (a+b=1) part go away anyway. ((Aa+Ab)/(Ca+Cb)-(Ba+Bb)/(Ca+Cb)) / ( (Ba+Bb) / (Ca+Cb) ); but that doesn't make a lot of sense huh
---
But why? 1) it eliminates a discrepancy between reality and the predicted math (if it's right), and certainly simplifies the QM prediction, and instead of being a Cuboid distribution it's just a pretty sphere.
I've found that the topic of 'Local Hidden Variable' is a '101st guy with a bad idea saying dumb things' :) ya know that feeling?
-D3x
So I made this small physical experiment to test a few simple test cases. 2:1 is 50% of 90 degrees.
This is a classical physics thing that could be done even pre-fire.
This is a comparison of the ratios of the weights; the weight != measure, and for random stochastic tests, it is required by QM Inequalities to be measured as a ratio of the whole, instead of weighed against each other.
The difference is on a scale, it's hard to have a 'nothing' count as something, so in QM it's a bunch of events that did happen, and an assumed amount of events that didn't happen, and those are compared.
The classical physics approach of modelling this with forces would involve the cos() of the angle of the balance, which is not what the ratio of angle to ratio of things on scales is. The cos() function at 0 (where the scales are balanced) is 0, where this function is -2.
If the balance of a wheel isn't compared against the wrong function, I think that a giant ferris wheel like the one in france where one bottle moves from "off" to "on" is a greater increase than classical physics gives it credit for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ remember that over balanced wheel in france? This is the math that explains why it does work, night, day, wind, no wind...
So electro-magnetic devices, (to revisit the future from the way distant past) given that as a basis, a thing is electric and magnetic, and disrupting the balance tips the scales to excess out... Considering the recent kap-gen sort of replications that have occured.
(this is an actual half-baked part though, the above is done to just right; (for me) needs to be alittle more done for everyone else)
I'm busy now handling to many things at once.
..give me some time to respond.
Wesley
Roger
Some other examples - I realize it might be a lot to process; honestly you have to pretend to forget mostly everything and go back to before you even have fire.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvP1CaiVjI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvP1CaiVjI) (red wheel) This is pretty good - overbalance just flops out at 90 degrees. and stays folded on the other side.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7noI8sHL8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7noI8sHL8) (single tab flip) This one could be gimmicked - it never completes a full rotation (maybe it broke? maybe it has a wind-up spring)
Quote from: d3x0r on June 03, 2022, 04:51:44 AM
discrepancy between reality and the predicted math (if it's right),
-D3x
as a math student you will likely take very few or no physics classes throughout college,
but at 1:34 minute of this video you see when these two take different approach and Physics becomes leading over math.
https://youtu.be/NtKYh0e3RF8?t=97 (https://youtu.be/NtKYh0e3RF8?t=97)
That means that physics is overwhelmingly dominating- state or order authoritatively.
( some analogy may be expressed as a dominant sexual act
- that happened despite of level of domination with most if not all of the pleasure or benefit ,
belonging to the dominator having a commanding position)
Despite all of variables ruling science( physics) dictates the rules and math is trying to support its axioms , but axioms are based on models and its manifested, checked, verified, and approved behavior.
So
with all do respect to you, your knowledge, passion, experience- you are dealing here with the guy who is seating on
practically checked, working, FE
theoretically supported or delivered:
by Nikola Tesla, Dr James Corum, Kenneth Corum, Dr Hans,
and critically approached with all scrutiny by Dr Roy.
Where Dr Hans and Dr Roy are my friends in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He5xQOJHlrU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He5xQOJHlrU)
_________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion:
Overunity is a nonsense
Free Energy exists and there is nothing special about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ldus3AQSpE&t=771s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ldus3AQSpE&t=771s)
- masturbating one's brain by changing priority and flip math over physics is not my domain nor it leads in best of my believe to any results despite of just being entertaining.
- I'm not tempted.
try to understand minimalist .
Minimalist living is about intention.
You make room and time in your life for the things you love
and eliminate everything that distracts you .
I can't be purchased, corrupted, and yes I can be pushed, but not much.
I can only be convinced and you didn't convince me.
World respect is based on models of physics and people whose opinion can't be altered.
Model in physics doesn't have family to feed nor bosses.
Minimalists are creatures led by :
clarity, purpose, and intentionality.-happy and sustained with not much needs for change.
_________________________________________________________________________
practicality:
- looking at impossible e.g perpetual motion we see nonsense of practical application
if the device can't produce any gain, it could serve only as an art- but even that is impossible as there is no perpetual motion.and we know it because physics rules over e.g math.
Theoretical physics needs time.
I'm not talking that life is to short for playing e.g with:
spin / NMR
a basic 3D coordinate system I did it.
https://youtu.be/QHBEHOOsxT4?t=457 (https://youtu.be/QHBEHOOsxT4?t=457)
however you may watch this video from the beginning of it.
-as I act there as assassinated together with Tariel Kapanadze, by some Russians, but still lucky to be alive.
-later on in time, they approached me few more times ..
_________________________________________________________________________
,,, What about me:
who cares?
I'm nobody or to be more precise nobody special.
I feel good, great as a member of the crowd but you my friend not- you are different.( opinion of my wife- psychologist,
reading your comments . )
My focus is in particle physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s)
but I'm quite good (or for some incredibly good) in electromagnetism in particular electromagnetic wave from practical and theoretical perspective.
I'm definitely not a guru in all aspects of physics (e.g similar to a MD in internal medicine.)
Wesley
Quote from: stivep on June 08, 2022, 09:26:14 PM
My focus is in particle physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s)
but I'm quite good (or for some incredibly good) in electromagnetism in particular electromagnetic wave from practical and theoretical perspective.
I'm definitely not a guru in all aspects of physics (e.g similar to a MD in internal medicine.)
below are my electron microscopes. I have few of them
but in total I had four.
Wesley
:) funny complaint 'I'm too advanced to play with sticks and stones'; I do wish I had the connection to electro-static/electro-magnetic balance already.....
In the middle there - oh I'm a hermit, and I hate crowds; and am happier nowhere near them.... except when I have a eureka moment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v5s6yi/whats_the_angle_of_deflection_for_a_ratio_of/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v5s6yi/whats_the_angle_of_deflection_for_a_ratio_of/) no answers
https://sciencehiddenfacts.quora.com/What-is-the-angle-of-deflection-for-a-ratio-of-objects-on-a-beam-balance-scale (https://sciencehiddenfacts.quora.com/What-is-the-angle-of-deflection-for-a-ratio-of-objects-on-a-beam-balance-scale) no answers (posted by me)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/formula-for-implementing-a-simulated-weighing-scale/ (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/formula-for-implementing-a-simulated-weighing-scale/) no correct answers (except mine, but that's what the debate is about)
A beam balance is one of the simplest things you can play with - why is this such a impossible question?
I threw together this demo to show my math, and even what the equivalent classical physics answer is. https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/indexBeamBalance.html (https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/indexBeamBalance.html) At a 3:4 ratio 22.5 degrees in reality, physics measures 20 degrees - this is tough; need a near ideal scale (other than the classical answer should also be less than 20 for any non-ideal scale, so if the balance gets to 20 degrees it'd still be a win for the simple ratio...
simply, and with little explanation A and B are a count of objects (they should all be the same type of thing, apples, pence, grams, etc - especially grams since 1 gram is very much like another gram).
classical physics : cos( A/(A+B) ) or -cos( B/A+B ).
simple ratio : (A-B)/A or (A-B)/B, depending on which is larger.
Yes, math isn't physics and vice versa - but this is so simple... I even posted it as a challenge question https://discord.com/channels/834837272234426438/835139788742852669/983277950554243104 (https://discord.com/channels/834837272234426438/835139788742852669/983277950554243104) on Some2 ( 3 blue 1 brown's channel) and got 0 answers.
There's a math discord channel too - I asked, they said it should be a challenge, but I can't write to challenge, and got 0 answers.
I'd have preferred a challenge of the math... the derivitives of the functions mentioned above are entirely different, and lead to different results. As I mentioned I chased this actually backward from QM, so everything, based on this idea of simple harmonic oscillators of e^(pi*i) is really arguably mathematically wrong for the situation of a balance beam... and in turn many other things.
Navier Stokes for example, is in complex numbers, where the radius and spin are inseparably combined; this leads to paths along the polar graph that are convergence and divergence, and loses that the flow is really still a regular linear/rectangular coordinate system of flow, and spin is caused by an offset of balance.
---
Approaching this from a rapid change in balance, especially at the balance point, a simple calculation... on the attached image, the bottom left quater are only hung by the rim of the wheel - the left top quarter does extra work, because the mass extends about 45 degrees, and if the arms are 4 inches, is only 3.4 inches out... If the wheel is also a 4 inch radius, then the are 8 inches and 7.4 inches respectively. On the left there's 16 that are 7.4 inches for a total of 116.4 outword inches, plus 9*4 for the bottom quarter - another 36 inches. 152.4 total.
On the right there's 5 and most of a 6th that's at 7.4 inches for 42.58 and 15 at 8 inches for a total of 120, added together is 162.58... If there are weights at the end of the arms that are at least as much mass as the arm themselves, this is an excess of balance on the right side, which will provide a constant velocity.
(modeled on one of the videos above, the red paddle wheel thing in snow)
The "red wheel" does not appear to be a functional device.
You can visibly see where the masses are from the center of rotation,
It is obviously being driven, by force or momenti.
what is a value of wasted time vs pursuit of some larger life goal?
Why are you here?
What do you expect?
____________________________
For math, game, popular entertainment there are other places to go to.
For showing yourself smart, in math, it is to small and to diversified audience.
Real beauty of electromagnetic wave,- is not your domain, nor you would dedicate to it your next 2 years of life
People wants to gain something:
- some knowledge, ideas. Practicality is appreciated too.
- the field of energy and mechanisms related.
-something is interesting, and so what?
:)
___________________________
Wesley
Quote from: Ufopolitics on June 08, 2022, 01:49:27 PM
That is a typical brush motor...and have a servo-speed sensor built inside (a Black-White marked Disk with a photo cell reader)
It was the old ways that they kept speed regulated...
But this is off topic friend.
I'm also leaning towards the fact that it's a brush.
Because it is reversible when power is connected in any polarity.
But this motor has surprisingly low rpm and high torque.
This means that the motor must have a lot of poles.
Dexor
I like math, I have done these calcs before and have been studying gravity wheels for over 20 years.
If you had done the calculations correctly, you would get 0, or very close to 0 torque for your red wheel. If there was torque, they wouldn't need a drill to drive it.
Dynamically, it will act differently to a static model. The faster you spin it, the less positive torques will exist: ie. the levers will take relatively longer to flip out or in, creating drag on the system.
The "Balancewheel" is balanced when still, and an inertial brake when moving.
ADD: The overbalance wheel in France, (Aldo Costa's) wheel works due to change in air pressure, hence the little sealed bottles.
I discovered this principle in 1993. In Boyscouts we made an eye dropper bottle.
Basically an eye dropper full of air floating in a sealed bottle of water.
Squeeze the bottle to increase pressure and the air becomes more dense,
and the eye dropper sinks.
What i discovered was that hiking up or down a mountain would change the
height inside the bottle at which the eye dropper floated.
So a large ferris wheel or something that changed elevation greatly, like a dumbweighter
Could be used to change buoyancy in air.
making one side lighter than the other, even though they are identical.
There are weather issues though. Changes in the baro can crash the system.
Back to topic:
I favor the concept of quantifying the unknowns into scalar variables or whatever equivalent is necessary.
QM/QT is inherently flawed because of their approach.
@dex
I think the problem with your beam balance question is the symantics.
Or rather your wording which contradicts the question itself.
the angle of deflection (+ or -) is the angle of restricted motion of the lever or it's maximum.
in the most extreme case it is 90-degrees.
At less than the force to overcome the levers friction this may be offset to some degree:
This is defined by the mechanics of the lever and the proportionality between the masses.
Otherwise: Anything either side of 1:1 the angle of deflection is maximum for the lever system.
"The fat kid on the teeter totter is always on the ground"
Sm0ky2
Quote"The fat kid on the teeter totter is always on the ground"
Ha ha. I will have to use that.
Quote from: stivep on June 10, 2022, 03:34:55 AM
what is a value of wasted time vs pursuit of some larger life goal?
Why are you here?
What do you expect?
____________________________
For math, game, popular entertainment there are other places to go to.
For showing yourself smart, in math, it is to small and to diversified audience.
Real beauty of electromagnetic wave,- is not your domain, nor you would dedicate to it your next 2 years of life
People wants to gain something:
- some knowledge, ideas. Practicality is appreciated too.
- the field of energy and mechanisms related.
-something is interesting, and so what?
:)
___________________________
Wesley
(links in descriptions) THese are my videos ... 'EM isn't me...'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJYLTFiUeU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJYLTFiUeU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsorE1JD7HM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsorE1JD7HM)
I haven't gotten there YET - I only just discovered that there is an alternate math; if it's not right, then the result is - for a random simulator emulating photons passing through polarizers, I just have to apply `cos( ratio)` and there's some magical force that means for a count of things the curve is modified. From analysis of weights at a quantized level, which is the same math for just comparting correlation of 2 obersevers with different measuring devices viewing the same event. I realized just how simple this would be to disprove one or the other with a simple, fairly deterministic experiment... I'm building up to mine, I made a few models, but I had my phase off ... and was expecting only 3.5 degrees vs 10 degrees which would have been like 250% error and surely easy to see... the real discprepancy is only 2.47 degrees at the worst case.
I'm fine with just modifying my result for comparing the ratio of events that happen or don't happen after applying cos() to it - that matches QM exactly and nothings broken, and we go back to Aldo Costa's wheel relies on external forces.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on June 10, 2022, 03:47:45 PM
Dexor
I like math, I have done these calcs before and have been studying gravity wheels for over 20 years.
If you had done the calculations correctly, you would get 0, or very close to 0 torque for your red wheel. If there was torque, they wouldn't need a drill to drive it.
Dynamically, it will act differently to a static model. The faster you spin it, the less positive torques will exist: ie. the levers will take relatively longer to flip out or in, creating drag on the system.
The "Balancewheel" is balanced when still, and an inertial brake when moving.
ADD: The overbalance wheel in France, (Aldo Costa's) wheel works due to change in air pressure, hence the little sealed bottles.
I get it - I walked away from the idea after investigating the John Device, and working out 'oh it's the cos(angle of tilt (whichis powre in)) raises the weight by well the arc... and imparts a spin of ... that weight falling down the slope, and the output of the weight is the same as the input.
That's presuming that cos(ratio) is the proper output. Having seen the slopes of the derivitives I'm not so sure.
Part of the problem is the 4D spacetime.... there's really 7, 3 for velocity, 3 for spin, 1 for time. Yes you might consider the spin a linear transformation with sin and cos which certainly work in this case to move all points around an axis the same amount; but the specific angle to move them might be calculated differently.
(This is still a work in progress)
Collisions for 3D (and maybe I should start with 2D, but really should be basically the same) could be modeled instead of taking a cross product of the velocity with the differences in positions to find a spin axis and cos(angle) to transform them to, could be taken as the mass*velocity (weight) applied to a balance beam with a fulcrum of the center of mass, the point of collision a direct projection forward, the plane of the fulrums it will apply spin to is perpendicular to the velocity vector, and doesn't need any additional information to find where the axis is... then the ratio of the masses and offset from the fulcum ends up being the ratio of 0-90 spin for that object.
One is finding a lot of information from the future (assuming you knew the angle, the cos( angle) is in the cross product) this isntead already knows the angle, and knows where the pivots are.
If I go back and revisit the math, instead applying what I know is the error in the curve, then things like Aldo's wheel makes a lot of sense. And still VEProject is clear they cannot work - there's no tipping the scales, it's just all letting the scale settle into a balance.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on June 10, 2022, 05:30:04 PM
@dex
the angle of deflection (+ or -) is the angle of restricted motion of the lever or it's maximum.
in the most extreme case it is 90-degrees.
-1 to +1 and 0 is in the middle. this is sort of like 'i' is 90 degrees, 1 is 90 degrees, 2 is 180 3 the same as -1, ... if you numbered the sine wave with quaters of 0 1 2 3 you'd get 0 1 0 -1 0...
It's actually quarter turns that apply here - while the numbers from -1 to 1 are the fraction from -90 to 90 (can simply be modified)
I apologize, I may slip between the two systems - and even radians because you can just throw a pi/2 in there.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on June 10, 2022, 05:30:04 PM[/size]
At less than the force to overcome the levers friction this may be offset to some degree:
This is defined by the mechanics of the lever and the proportionality between the masses.
Otherwise: Anything either side of 1:1 the angle of deflection is maximum for the lever system.
"The fat kid on the teeter totter is always on the ground"
https://overunity.com/19139/local-hidden-variables-for-the-win-not-101st-bad-idea/msg567774/#msg567774 but I already posted a picture that's easy to see - if you have a fulcrum that's a pivot point that can't fall off the support, a 2:1 ratio is 45 degrees. 3:4 is 22.5 degrees... whatever to whatever is some degrees, and is not a critical failure.
Quote from: d3x0r on June 12, 2022, 09:43:24 PM
(links in descriptions) THese are my videos ... 'EM isn't me...'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJYLTFiUeU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJYLTFiUeU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsorE1JD7HM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsorE1JD7HM)
I haven't gotten there YET
your videos as seven and six years old.
That doesn't indicate an interest in physics of energy transfer and conversion.
Physics rules and model is just the tool used by it.
please take it, as a friendly advice, I wish you the best.
______________________________________________________________Supposedly you were looking for energy conversion resulting in effect electrical energy for free called also
Free Energy.here you have it.
It's so easy.
Explanation:
there are two mechanisms present here:
#1. Energy transfer from point A to point B using earth/air two dimensional interface.
#2. Energy extraction from Schumann waveguide that uses mechanism of #1 as a base.
Assuming that you have wire for free and labor is your own that would be close to zero cost of making it.
but you are interested with math I assumed at least for the last seven years.
Dr. James Corum.
I assume he knew about energy extraction from Schumann waveguide,
but this was not good for his business.
In his business energy transfer from point A to point B was the goal.
so I instead of making patents I decided to give it for free, but free is often not appreciated.
That is the unfortunate truth about human mammal.
Below I am giving you the patents of Dr. James Corum.https://patents.justia.com/inventor/james-f-corum (https://patents.justia.com/inventor/james-f-corum)
but you have no freaking idea, what you reading, what is it about, what to do with.
With all due respect you will be
like a man from the jungle, trying to read Shakespeare .Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
______________________________________________________________You want to test yourself?
So it takes approximately two years of school,
or two months of study for an amateur with basic knowledge about electromagnetism.
But it takes two weeks , for talented intelligent usually young men to be able to read and understand
these patents.
so my friend you instead of, hanky-panky, cruising around of nothing, possibly B'S-ing yourself,
can find how good you are, and we can check it out two weeks from now.
I would love to be wrong
but you're possibly going to be looking at those patents like a cow on plasma TV .
I'm on your side I wish you the best
Wesley
ps: you like math , so look at math there in patents and pictures
and after that go here and this mechanism is a key to A to B energy transfer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIABIU3tRw&t=156s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIABIU3tRw&t=156s)
It doesn't talk about ELF ( extra low frequency used by us to get energy from Schumann Waveguide, but
it explained the entire mechanism of Zenneck wave that has many names. And is not important if we call it plasmon or polariton
Name Zenneck Wave is reserved to ELF.
the mechanism is simpler for ELF too.
After that you are ready to read with easiness my two other topics.
Quote from: stivep on June 13, 2022, 09:55:33 AM
your videos as seven and six years old.
That doesn't indicate an interest in physics of energy transfer and conversion.
Physics rules and model is just the tool used by it.
please take it, as a friendly advice, I wish you the best.
Or you can take it that noone cared to try anything or confirm anything... so between public disinterest and really with no MO identified there wasn't a clear path forward. Lots of things were very good at energy transfer- but at that time I also didn't have an external power supply I could even attempt to loop the system regardless of what the math said it should do.
But sure; I'm a dunce, they kept in in gifted and talented in elementary so I wouldn't drag the class down; they gave me independent research to study topics I found interesting and give a report because I was too dumb for what they were otherwise teaching. I got advanced 2 years in math in 6th grade so I finished HS with Calc II amongst other Advanced placement classes.
I can barely understand what letters are to write sentences. WTH man.
I believe that you are talented and have great potential.
Two of scientists I have employed were having a lot of problem to understand Zenneck wave and its phenomena
too.
But it was long time ago.
It is nothing wrong with not knowing.
Wesley
Ya but all these attacks on person and personality aren't attacking the math - or pointing to any specific thing that makes either more right than the other.
'You don't know me' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCseUkehHag first 10 seconds... and further if you care it's overall short.)
This feels a lot more like having a discussion with someone with some religious faith.
Quote from: d3x0r on June 13, 2022, 11:15:09 AM
person and personality aren't attacking the math - or pointing to any specific thing that makes either more right than the other.
I have a very friendly approach to you.
Without responding to the questions or suggestions or concerns,
it is hard to become a respected party in scientific, experimental,mutual conversation.-
-please take two weeks, read patents of Dr. James Corum,
analyze their mathematical equations,
and prove how smart and talented you are.
I will be delighted to see your mathematically dominated dancing with physics
you ......of course you know how to dance I assume.
but till then:
-can you tell me in what approximate percentage your understand these patents?https://patents.justia.com/inventor/james-f-corum
Quote from: d3x0r on June 13, 2022, 11:15:09 AM
This feels a lot more like having a discussion with someone with some religious faith.
I do respect every faith religion, values, and every race and sexual orientation.
Religion is not my domain.Fate or faith is not an element of procedure related to a measurement of physical property nor is explaining Zenneck Wave
:)
Wesley
Quote from: d3x0r on June 13, 2022, 10:32:20 AM
noone cared to try anything or confirm anything...
are you a member of the group of no-one ?
Wesley
Quote from: stivep on June 14, 2022, 04:05:55 PM
are you a member of the group of no-one ?
Wesley
:) hmm. If I was, I would care? But I'm not technically?
I was reviewing https://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Isaac-Newton-Principia-English-1846.pdf (https://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Isaac-Newton-Principia-English-1846.pdf)
Let me prefix with ; as a developer, when I run across a software library that doesn't behave right for the circumstances I need it for, I often just jump in and fix the library (especially those that have source, which are the sorts I tend to use anyway). To me, Math, Physics, and things in this class of things are libraries of functions to apply and get results.
I sort of figured maybe the 'bug' was from Newton, but there's actually nothing there specifically about a rate of turning for a ratio of weights; there is of course multiplying length to create a balance of force (lever arm length), similarly for ropes. There is a lot about planets, which I think are mostly unbalanced scales with 0:1 sort of ratio that the scalar is 1 always; that's also the case in harmonic pendulums, the weight is all on one side of the beam from the fulcrum, and is another special case where the rotation multiplier is always 1.
So I'm not breaking physics (at least up to and through Newtonian physics). *phew*... and it's really just an additional function that I can mostly patch on the outside. But; I think maybe for orbital mechanics of 3 bodies, the ratios of the masses should determine which direction elements in the system go, depending on which side is 'heavier' has more attraction.
- I'll get back to you on those patents... isn't that sort of the same as just having a spool of wire on a flatbed truck parked under a power line?
https://archive.org/details/cu31924012325100/page/n313/mode/1up (https://archive.org/details/cu31924012325100/page/n313/mode/1up)
This image represents the magnetic vector potential and shows the hidden variable that connects current and the magnetic field, and this explains the right-hand rule, apply it and see what causes the B-field/potential. This also shows curl A = B: right hand/corkscrew rule on the vortex, thumb points in the direction of B.
Quote from: alan on June 15, 2022, 07:34:14 AM
https://archive.org/details/cu31924012325100/page/n313/mode/1up (https://archive.org/details/cu31924012325100/page/n313/mode/1up)
This image represents the magnetic vector potential and shows the hidden variable that connects current and the magnetic field, and this explains the right-hand rule, apply it and see what causes the B-field/potential. This also shows curl A = B: right hand/corkscrew rule on the vortex, thumb points in the direction of B.
Yes; this is apparently cyclic and a lot more like a harmonic oscillator. (maybe?)
I found these natural curves in rotation space that resemble a graph of a magnetic dipole field. (attached image)
displacement test (https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/mathSphereDecay.html%20Space) which has a link at top to more info, which has links to other demos including What are those curves? (https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/3d/indexSphereMap3.html) like what orientations do they represent? They can be translated so any vector is the primary direction for the poles... but the controls sort of limit it to pivoting around the Y axis. (can use various sliders to control the extents of the curves graphed; by default it graphs all angles available on that plane.
At one pole, all of the frames are aligned like forward is forward and right is right; while on the other pole the frames end up in a 2x cycle rotation like you get moving one magnet around another magnet, that it rotates 2x what you move it's position as... so it flips 360 degrees by the time it's gone just to the south pole; and 180 at 90.
I'm finding that 'curl' as modeled by imaginary numbers may not be the best framework. The linear motion of liquids against other cells causes unbalance and spin, but then the convergence and divergence isn't really associated with that spin, and the straight lines that matter takes as a velocity are difficult to model as polar equations from any point to any other point.
But really; what I don't get for a connection to magnetic/static (EM/ES?) electronics sort of iis that? Inductors/induction is a lot like a flywheel - adding energy to keep it spinning, and as long as there's a driving force it stays up; but as the force that drives it lessens, it imparts part of the stored force into the work (like a flywheel that's not being charged anymore, driving a bus or something). That doesn't really seem to have any attribute like balance... and even just +/- charge there's really only charge and not-charge, which makes it more like a pendulum/newtonian system...
But in resonance there are sort of balance points - where the voltage is at a maximum, and all of the force is electrostatic, just before the magnetic field is depleted and starts building in a inverted polarity and the capacitors discharge ( sort of how Kapnadaze generators are supposed to work in that range of peek voltage on a resonant coil)... but that's just observation, and not something I can really say is true; Wesley saw a generator working - got to stand next to it and all... so much like that clip of the guy that flew to france to see Aldo Costa's thing, he was a witness; but much like the AC witness, attributes it to external forces, a hidden telsa coil in the back room, a coincidental sync with a radio or telluric current(?) as I understand?
I wonder if the hand-modified/wound generator/motor things end up working because of a imbalance in the windings that's slight enough to acquire a torque outside of their normal curve.