Splitting the electron stream

[utilitarian]

Wait, I did not know the Orbo effect was ever successfully forward engineered.

[gravityblock]

Wait, I did not know the Orbo effect was ever successfully forward engineered.

You have a good point, but please start another thread to discuss if the effect is real or not.  I'm trying to show in this thread how the effect is real, mathematically.

Thanks,

GB

[juice]

63 - 37 = 26. It should be obvious where the 63 and 37 came from.

26 / 23mH = 1.130

1.130 - 1.094 = 0.036

63 and 37 are percentages. They have no units, same with 26.
Then you divide 26 by 23mH, giving 1.13 the units of inverse Henries (technically it's inverse millihenries, but as you mentioned, it's just a matter of decimal places and I don't really care about that)

The units of inverse Henry using the least derived units is:
meters^2 * kg / C^2

Fundamentally, your claim is that 1.13 is close to 1.094, so that is what is represented by dividing 26 by 23 mH. BUT 1.094 is a SPEED, and its basic units are: m / s

(again we can convert 1.094 MHz-m, so it would be 1094000 m/s, but I don't care about that)

So what you are doing by comparing a number with units of inverse henry (1.13 mH^-1) to speed (1.094E6 m/s) MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

You say that it's beyond chance to find numbers so close so it must have meaning, but you don't appreciate how remarkably easy it is to throw together some numbers algebraically and get a result within a few percent.

[gravityblock]

63 and 37 are percentages. They have no units, same with 26.
Then you divide 26 by 23mH, giving 1.13 the units of inverse Henries (technically it's inverse millihenries, but as you mentioned, it's just a matter of decimal places and I don't really care about that)

The units of inverse Henry using the least derived units is:
meters^2 * kg / C^2

Fundamentally, your claim is that 1.13 is close to 1.094, so that is what is represented by dividing 26 by 23 mH. BUT 1.094 is a SPEED, and its basic units are: m / s

(again we can convert 1.094 MHz-m, so it would be 1094000 m/s, but I don't care about that)

So what you are doing by comparing a number with units of inverse henry (1.13 mH^-1) to speed (1.094E6 m/s) MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

You say that it's beyond chance to find numbers so close so it must have meaning, but you don't appreciate how remarkably easy it is to throw together some numbers algebraically and get a result within a few percent.

I said units, etc.  You conveniately overlooked "etc." with your unit argument.  In addition, 1% could refer to 1 unit, or 5% could refer to 5 units.  Your point is senseless from my perspective.  I even said 63 and 37 were approximate.  The exact values are below, based on Euler's constant. 

63.2120559 - 36.7879441 = 26.4241118

26.4241118 / 1.094 = 24.153667093235831809872029250457.  The 1.13 is now 1.094 by substituting the approximate values with the exact values, for a perfect match.  Anyways, the 1.13 was actually 1.13^-1 m/s and not 1.13mH^-1 as you stated.  So, the comparison was actually (1.13^-1 m/s) to speed (1.094E6 m/s).  You mistated the facts and used the approximate values instead of the exact values I later posted.  In the steorn demo, the difference in inductance was 985 - 961 = 24.  The 985 and 961 is ignoring any precision in decimal digits on the display because there was small fluctuations.  A closer look at the video, showed the inductance rose slightly above 985, so I substituted my previous number of 984 with 985, and this changed the 23 to a 24.  With these new numbers, the results are identical to each other when ignoring the decimal digits and are well within experimental error.  My calculations are much less than a few percent.  The calculations could almost be considered an exact match if the small fluctuations are taken into consideration.  The final result, was a comparison between my calculations of 24.153667093235831809872029250457 and the change in induction of 24.xxxx in the demo talks.

In regards to your henry to m/s B.S., there is a fatal flaw in your thought process which I'm going to take care of right now. The speed of the magnetic field propagating through a core material is relatively slow.  In Steorn's test with Nickel, the magnetic field propagated through the material in 100 m/s, if my memory serves me correctly.  What if the speed of the magnetic field in a material changes with an induction change (Steorn has done extensive studies on magnetic viscosity and it shouldn't be overlooked).  If this is the case, then your argument holds no weight once again, because inductance could be a factor in the speed of the magnetic field in a material, which relates to m/s. This would definitely correspond to a time varying field if the other parameters, such as voltage, current, and inductance had the correct values.  Even if this isn't the case, then maybe the inductance could be part of a function relating to the speed/time of something else.  You can divide the henry by the resistance in ohms, which are different units of measurment, to get the time constant, which is also a different unit of measurement. So, why can't you do henry to speed if there is a relationship between them?  We can see by the equation TC = L/R, that the inductance is related to time, so there's a strong possiblity that it could be related to speed or m/s also.  It should be obvious, if you don't know what the numbers represent or how they relate to each other, then it is foolish to assign it a unit of measurement or anything else. 

The fine structure constant is used all of the time, even though nobody knew how this number was calculated.  This number was only used because it gave the correct results, but nobody knew why.  It doesn't matter if you know why or not, if it gives the correct result all of the time, then that is what is important.  You can calculate the fine structure constant with 1.094 megahertz m/s. Science now knows the fine structure constant is related to the quantum transitional speed, and can now calculate the fine structure constant.  They no longer have to worry about why they're using the fine structure constant.


GB

[juice]

You can divide the henry by the resistance in ohms, which are different units of measurment, to get the time constant, which is also a different unit of measurement. So, why can't you do henry to speed if there is a relationship between them?

Henry has units Ohm*s. Therefore, you divide the inductance in henries by the resistance in ohms and you get the time constant, in units of seconds. That works just fine.

What you are doing is saying that 24 mH is special because if you divide it by 1.094 MHz*m, you get approximately 100*(1-2/e), a dimensionless constant. That doesn't work at all. What if you decided to use cgs units?!

Here is an analogy: I notice that my hand is 3*pi inches long. EUREKA! The secret to the universe is revealed in my hand! But only because I'm using English units... so it doesn't make sense. If I used metric units, the whole thing falls apart.

In science, it doesn't matter what units you use, but they must AGREE in your equations...

inductance could be a factor in the speed of the magnetic field in a material, which relates to m/s. This would definitely correspond to a time varying field if the other parameters, such as voltage, current, and inductance had the correct values. Even if this isn't the case, then maybe the inductance could be part of a function relating to the speed/time of something else.

That's nice, but then why doesn't your equation take these into account? It shouldn't work if it ignores these factors.