Bifilar pancake coil overunity experiment

[ayeaye]

There is a saying that "comparison is not reason".
Metaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions.

No you are completely wrong. That is, there are many ways how one can go wrong, with an ordinary deductive thinking one can go wrong as well, when doing it wrongly. But metaphors are indispensable in analytical thinking. Which they today don't teach in schools, before they did, they may not want that people can think. Analytical thinking is all about modeling, to understand something, one has to build a model of it. And metaphors are good for building such models in ones mind. Comparison is not reason, but comparison is necessary for reason.

[ayeaye]

And then one does experiments, still no overunity, still no overunity, still no overunity. It's because we are trapped by induction, which is so symmetric thing. Its symmetry is just amazing, whatever we do, we cannot break it, that's really phenomenal.

[onepower]

F6FLT

There is a saying that "comparison is not reason".

Reason: is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

How exactly can we make sense of "things" if not by comparing one thing to other things. In fact all science, a method of testing explanations, is based on standards which is a direct comparison isn't it?.

Metaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions.

What I think you are doing relates to another area of science called psychology. This is where people make blanket statements with no justification in an attempt to project and reinforce their own beliefs. They also "gaslight" other people rather than use logic, reason and facts to justify a point.

Like this..."Metaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions". We have... projection, triangulation, baiting, a lack of justification, false comparisons and generally degrading behavior. It's a check list for classic narcissistic abusive personality disorders in my opinion.

If we are going to speak of science then at the very least we should try to follow the method. We should state our claim or objection to a claim then explain our justification in a reasonable and logical manner.

[ayeaye]

I called atoms fire wheels. Atoms resemble wheels, because the electrons orbit the nucleus, they don't exactly orbit, but one may see it like that, as it is what orbiting means in the quantum world.

Fire is somewhat similar to a jet stream, that can affect things remotely.

Why, because like during induction, the atoms in the core (dipoles) induce current when they are more or less side wise towards the wire. Side means side like the side of the wheel. Then the rotation of the electron around the nucleus moves the electrons in the wire forward, just like a wheel. Because such rotation creates a rotating electric field.

During that the atom has to rotate or move more towards or away from the wire, this is why i showed the analogy of the leaf blower. In that increase or decrease of the blow relative to the leaf makes it to move in a certain direction, while constant blow in one direction may only scatter leaves in all directions. This is not a direct analogy, but just to give an idea why increase or decrease of the force matters, while rotational movement alone may not be enough to force things to move in one direction.

And what is the most amazing in that, is that during that process the electrons in the atom do work, forcing the electrons in the wire to move. And in spite of that, they don't lose energy and don't fall to the nucleus, so where does the energy that keeps them orbiting come from? How they usually answer to that question, is that it is not exactly orbiting, it is different. But this is in essence just talking about something else to avoid the need to answer. They are also talking about magnetic and electric field, avoiding the explanation how one comes from the other.

This electrons orbiting nucleus also create something with amazing properties, which they call magnetic field. Which is not exactly field but rather a result of a dynamic process. What this orbiting causes, is a field that is not symmetric, that is not spherical, parallel or in any other way symmetric, in that it has two poles. Why is that special, is that an asymmetric field can theoretically do continues work. Again where the energy there comes from. This looks like the same question as where the energy comes from that keeps the electrons orbiting.

Thus i stated the reason for comparison and explained it in a logical manner.

[onepower]

Ayeaye

I called atoms fire wheels. Atoms resemble wheels, because the electrons orbit the nucleus, they don't exactly orbit, but one may see it like that, as it is what orbiting means in the quantum world.

Fire is somewhat similar to a jet stream, that can affect things remotely.

Why, because like during induction, the atoms in the core (dipoles) induce current when they are more or less side wise towards the wire. Side means side like the side of the wheel. Then the rotation of the electron around the nucleus moves the electrons in the wire forward, just like a wheel. Because such rotation creates a rotating electric field.

I thought it was a good analogy and fire being a form of excitation/ionization could represent the fields of orbiting electrons. It is interesting stuff, the electron spin produces a magnetic dipole however the electron orbit does as well not unlike a current loop. I would say the electron orbit does qualify as a current loop not unlike a 1 turn coil in itself because a current is simply described as a moving particle/field.

And what is the most amazing in that, is that during that process the electrons in the atom do work, forcing the electrons in the wire to move. And in spite of that, they don't lose energy and don't fall to the nucleus, so where does the energy that keeps them orbiting come from? How they usually answer to that question, is that it is not exactly orbiting, it is different. But this is in essence just talking about something else to avoid the need to answer. They are also talking about magnetic and electric field, avoiding the explanation how one comes from the other.

It is strange that so many say perpetual motion is impossible yet in every science textbook we are told the electrons must orbit the nucleus perpetually... . In fact nobody can give even one example of something not in perpetual motion thus it is the norm and not an exception to any rule. Perpetual motion is universal and motion is energy thus everything everywhere represents energy. Our goal here is to figure out a way to extract some of this energy.

Good post and we need more of this kind of intelligent debate in my opinion. To follow the method of science in our conversations. As if to say here is my explanation or perspective of how I see things and here is my justification for it. All too often we see people tossing out a word salad with no justification which is meaningless in my opinion.