"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Arb, Americanist does not have any interest in what you are saying, despite the fact that I personally like the way you lay out facts. No matter how precise, simple, down to earth things you are going to come up with, you'll simply get something as idiotic as "do generators crank out the juice?" from that person.

Matthew 7:6

Currently I'm fishing with you guys... Looks like you're letting Arb hook himself though.

Originally posted by Americanist
Choose your words carefully... Are you referring to radiant energy when you mention electromagnetic energy?

If so, are you stating radiant energy comes from a generator?

Radiance refers to a transfer of the energy to the surroundings. The Earth is part of the sun's surroundings. Therefore the electromagnetic energy that comes to Earth from the sun is radiant electromagnetic energy.

The electromagnetic energy transmitted along a power line is engineered to have as little radiance as reasonably and economically possible. The whole idea of power distribution is to make the radiated energy as small as possible, and deliver as much power as possible to the destination. There are some small losses in power lines, and other components of the grid like transformers, and some of that could be attributed to radiant electromagnetic energy, such as infrared radiation emitted when the power line or transformer heats up, but the vast majority is not radiant. Wikipedia gives us an idea how much is radiant:
en.wikipedia.org...

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997[9] and 6.5% in 2007.[9] In general, losses are estimated from the discrepancy between energy produced (as reported by power plants) and energy sold to end customers; the difference between what is produced and what is consumed constitute transmission and distribution losses.

I suspect most if not all of those 6.5% losses represent the amount of radiant energy, the other 93.5% I would not characterize as radiant, though once it reaches the destination, much of it becomes radiant energy also, like the radiant energy from your toaster.

If you've got a point to make, please make it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The electromagnetic energy transmitted along a power line is engineered to have as little radiance as reasonably and economically possible. The whole idea of power distribution is to make the radiated energy as small as possible, and deliver as much power as possible to the destination. There are some small losses in power lines, and other components of the grid like transformers, and some of that could be attributed to radiant electromagnetic energy, such as infrared radiation emitted when the power line or transformer heats up, but the vast majority is not radiant.

The point is you're selling a falsehood. A generator forms a dipole at set intervals. A dipole in actuality is spin (+/-). This spin is pulsed as well as amplified along the lines to collect and contain radiant energy. In essence, radiant energy is then brought into the midsts of this field via a path of conductive material. To summarize, the power you're using is drawn from our surroundings by a burst of spin forming a wave of centralized radiant energy. So there's A/C in broader terms. You know, what you just referred to as a generator creating electromagnetic energy.

If you were able to leave this facet running instead of sending out short bursts, with a series of connections at extremely long intervals, a minuscule dipole on either side of a singularity could form...

Feel free to take a guess.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The electromagnetic energy transmitted along a power line is engineered to have as little radiance as reasonably and economically possible. The whole idea of power distribution is to make the radiated energy as small as possible, and deliver as much power as possible to the destination. There are some small losses in power lines, and other components of the grid like transformers, and some of that could be attributed to radiant electromagnetic energy, such as infrared radiation emitted when the power line or transformer heats up, but the vast majority is not radiant.

The point is you're selling a falsehood. A generator forms a dipole at set intervals. A dipole in actuality is spin (+/-).

Dipole IS NOT SPIN. God knows where you got this.

reply to post by Americanist
Cool.

Buddhasystem's right. There's no point talking to this one, Arb. He's got his treasured storyville version of reality, and I don't see even the tiniest hint from him that he has the slightest bit of interest as to what's really going on, or of what anything really means, or that he is even aware that he's just making stuff up.

Good on you for taking the trouble to explain things – clear and accurate as usual – but the words 'don't encourage him' come to mind...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Dipole IS NOT SPIN. God knows where you got this.

If frequency and amplitude are the same as temperature and pressure, why can't a dipole be spin? For that matter why can't a magnetic field be called electromagnetic radiation? Apparently words don't mean the same thing to Americanist as they do to scientists and engineers.

reply to post by Bobathon

Thanks and point taken, but for some reason I wanted to know what Americanist thought was really moving the electrons if it wasn't the wires moving through magnetic fields. Some people like to slow down to look at how crumpled up cars get after a crash, but in my case, I find a certain morbid fascination is seeing the crumpled up and mangled ideas of some people about how we get the AC power in our homes.

Originally posted by Americanist
A generator forms a dipole at set intervals. A dipole in actuality is spin (+/-).

You think you understand concepts that you don't understand. Earlier you mentioned temperature and heat. While they can be related in some instances, they are not synonymous as I illustrated with the example of high temperature in space of millions of degrees, where you can freeze to death from the low heat.

Likewise, a dipole may have a relationship to spin just as heat may have a relationship to temperature, but buddhasystem is right, they are by no means synonymous. If you want to have a serious discussion of scientific and engineering concepts, you should at least learn the language.

This spin is pulsed as well as amplified along the lines to collect and contain radiant energy. In essence, radiant energy is then brought into the midsts of this field via a path of conductive material.

What are you calling radiant energy? The magnetic field from the field magnets in the generator? A magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation may sound somewhat similar, and they are even related in some instances, but once again, they aren't the same thing.

Feel free to take a guess.

My guess is that you are confused about some basic terminology and fail to understand distinctions between terms like temperature, heat, and pressure versus frequency and amplitude; dipole and spin, magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation, etc. It is not a guess, but rather a fact, that you come across as very confused in your communication.

Here's a schematic of a simplified AC generator:
Inside the AC Generator
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/496eee21d47a.gif[/atsimg]

A loop of wire spinning through a magnetic field will create an alternating current.

If you want to clarify what you think you mean by dipole and radiant energy in terms of that schematic of an AC generator, feel free.
The magnetic field is created by the magnets labeled as "N" and "S" and in this example, they are stationary, not spinning. The loop of wire is spinning, and the current reverses in the wire each time it rotates 180 degrees.

There's no radiant energy depicted in that schematic. A real generator would have a little bit of radiant energy due to things like friction in the bearings, but radiant energy is not part of the power generation process because engineers design it so the power DOESN'T radiate to the extent feasibly possible.

If you read that link and comprehend it, you may gain a very basic understanding of how AC generators actually work. The AC generators at real power stations are somewhat more complex, though the basic principle involved is quite similar.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, don't you see that "Americanist" is just jerking you around? Seriously.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Some people like to slow down to look at how crumpled up cars get after a crash, but in my case, I find a certain morbid fascination is seeing the crumpled up and mangled ideas of some people

Fair enough!

It is kind of fascinating. Despite the fact that you're explanations are solid and crystal clear and his don't actually mean anything, he seems to think he's got you backed into a corner, which is quite sweet. Watch out – he's gonna use his crushing logic to deliver the killer blow to you any minute...

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
You're getting warmer. Water must aid in turning huge turbines to produce a flow of what off the generator? This is where you seem to being having trouble.

Electricity is channeled energy, so what do these pathway consist of? What exactly is sent through power lines?

I already explained this back on page 62 in this post when I explained how an ignorant man named Leedskalnin tried to debunk what academics think when he didn't even KNOW what academics think. I hope you aren't trying to do the same thing.

These are questions you should answer on your own... Not go off on a tangent or try to leap ahead in the process of responding.

You got your response, short but containing all details such as speed of propagation of EM field and how it relates to speed of electron movement. Pretty complete. If you don't understand these concepts, you better do some homework, like right now.

So we're back to the flow of electrons, and generators are doing what? Not hardly complete... Although rather elementary.

I love multiply nested quote boxes.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
You're getting warmer. Water must aid in turning huge turbines to produce a flow of what off the generator? This is where you seem to being having trouble.

Electricity is channeled energy, so what do these pathway consist of? What exactly is sent through power lines?

I already explained this back on page 62 in this post when I explained how an ignorant man named Leedskalnin tried to debunk what academics think when he didn't even KNOW what academics think. I hope you aren't trying to do the same thing.

These are questions you should answer on your own... Not go off on a tangent or try to leap ahead in the process of responding.

You got your response, short but containing all details such as speed of propagation of EM field and how it relates to speed of electron movement. Pretty complete. If you don't understand these concepts, you better do some homework, like right now.

So we're back to the flow of electrons, and generators are doing what? Not hardly complete... Although rather elementary.

I love multiply nested quote boxes.

1...2...3...4.... I declare a quote war.

I hate to say this Arbitrageur, but you seemed to suffer from linear and convergent thinking mentality. You seem to rely almost exclusively on logical analysis. Arbitrageur you discount aesthetic and intuitive information, which is the right-hemisphere function of our brain because it is considered less valuable to our culture. Arbitrageur is more concerned with measuring events and analysing their meaning, he does not like creating, that is why he has lost the ability to accept thing that sound beyond the science of today.

I don't believe, but I know science fiction is real.

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


Yes, when you can't defend any of the "science" you support, accuse those who work with the scientific method that they are not capable of intuition. I say that he's perfectly capable of intuition, but he doesn't consider intuition a way of validating scientific evidence.

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I hate to say this Arbitrageur, but you seemed to suffer from linear and convergent thinking mentality. You seem to rely almost exclusively on logical analysis. Arbitrageur you discount aesthetic and intuitive information, which is the right-hemisphere function of our brain because it is considered less valuable to our culture. Arbitrageur is more concerned with measuring events and analysing their meaning, he does not like creating, that is why he has lost the ability to accept thing that sound beyond the science of today.

Thanks, I'll take the logical analysis capability as a compliment rather than a criticism. I have plenty of creative right brain function which I used in extracurricular music activities where I often got a chance to play ad-lib solos that were completely creative.

So 547000 is right, I'm not lacking in creative abilities or intuition. However, one thing I learned as my physics studies progressed from Newtonian or classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, is that the intuition that served me so well in the former, didn't serve me at all in the latter. I hear the same comment from most scientists who study quantum mechanics. The observations are NOT intuitive.

Intuition and creativity still has a place in designing new experiments and tests, but once the experiment is designed and conducted, the experimental results and observations are what matters. Wanting the experimental result to agree with your intuition when it doesn't, isn't very helpful, but that is what seems to motivate some people who post in this thread with theories about the universe as they'd intuitively like it to be, rather than the universe as it actually is. When Feynman said that if we don't like this universe, we should go somewhere else, where the rules are more aesthetically pleasing, that was an admission that what we observe is sometimes NOT aesthetically pleasing, but intuitively fantasizing and wishing it were so doesn't make it so.

Until roughly the last century or a little more, mankind didn't have the ability to even perceive the quantum world, so we had little incentive, from a Darwinian perspective, to evolve abilities to understand it. I suspect that may be one reason it's so difficult for many of us to grasp or reconcile with our intuition.

I don't believe, but I know science fiction is real.

Science fiction does indeed have a way of becoming science fact...sometimes. But not all science fiction becomes fact, and until it DOES become science fact, it's still science fiction. So I don't know what you mean when you say you know science fiction is real, that sounds pretty silly if you mean today, but if you mean someday some of it will come true, I'd agree with the latter.

I'm a huge science fiction fan. I especially liked how the writers of Star Trek wrote some at least somewhat plausible science fiction tech into the screenplay. But some of the technologies, like the "Heisenberg compensator" (which allows transporter technology to overcome the Heisenberg uncertainly principle limitation), are a lot easier for a writer to write than for an engineer to design.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So 547000 is right, I'm not lacking in creative abilities or intuition. However, one thing I learned as my physics studies progressed from Newtonian or classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, is that the intuition that served me so well in the former, didn't serve me at all in the latter. I hear the same comment from most scientists who study quantum mechanics. The observations are NOT intuitive.

Intuition and creativity still has a place in designing new experiments and tests, but once the experiment is designed and conducted, the experimental results and observations are what matters. Wanting the experimental result to agree with your intuition when it doesn't, isn't very helpful, but that is what seems to motivate some people who post in this thread with theories about the universe as they'd intuitively like it to be, rather than the universe as it actually is. When Feynman said that if we don't like this universe, we should go somewhere else, where the rules are more aesthetically pleasing, that was an admission that what we observe is sometimes NOT aesthetically pleasing, but intuitively fantasizing and wishing it were so doesn't make it so.

Until roughly the last century or a little more, mankind didn't have the ability to even perceive the quantum world, so we had little incentive, from a Darwinian perspective, to evolve abilities to understand it. I suspect that may be one reason it's so difficult for many of us to grasp or reconcile with our intuition.

Science fiction does indeed have a way of becoming science fact...sometimes. But not all science fiction becomes fact, and until it DOES become science fact, it's still science fiction. So I don't know what you mean when you say you know science fiction is real, that sounds pretty silly if you mean today, but if you mean someday some of it will come true, I'd agree with the latter.

I'm a huge science fiction fan. I especially liked how the writers of Star Trek wrote some at least somewhat plausible science fiction tech into the screenplay. But some of the technologies, like the "Heisenberg compensator" (which allows transporter technology to overcome the Heisenberg uncertainly principle limitation), are a lot easier for a writer to write than for an engineer to design.

Okay! I agree that science fiction can indeed become real someday but not all of science fiction . I guess, since you're the expert on science in this thread, I pretty much agree with how you lay out and present the information according to the science as it is in our present moment. I have a question from a video I watch by Richard Hoagland. Why does a spinning ball shot at a angle go up higher and farther than a non-spinning ball, which Hoagland say, it violates Newtonian mechanic. I just wanted your thoughts on it. I guess a spinning ball could lessen air friction. What do you think about his magnetic field explanation. Is he just crazy or rational.

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Okay! I agree that science fiction can indeed become real someday but not all of science fiction . I guess, since you're the expert on science in this thread, I pretty much agree with how you lay out and present the information according to the science as it is in our present moment.

I'm glad we agree on that but I'm certainly not THE science expert in this thread, as we are fortunate to have other very knowledgeable people posting here as well, like buddhasystem and bobathon just to name a couple of others who contribute real science knowledge here, and there are others also.

I have a question from a video I watch by Richard Hoagland. Why does a spinning ball shot at a angle go up higher and farther than a non-spinning ball, which Hoagland say, it violates Newtonian mechanic. I just wanted your thoughts on it. I guess a spinning ball could lessen air friction. What do you think about his magnetic field explanation. Is he just crazy or rational.

In this case your intuition about the spinning ball interacting with the atmosphere serves you well, and it's astonishing that Hoagland and DePalma wouldn't consider this interaction which is well known in Golf, baseball pitches, and even a game that I play, tennis. I love putting all kinds of crazy spins on a tennis ball that will make it either travel further, or drop quicker than my opponent expects, if they didn't watch how I hit the ball. But a good tennis player can observe your stroke and predict the ball trajectory from that.

So what Hoagland is calling an antigravity effect unknown to science is really his bragging about his ignorance. This Wiki explains what you already suspected about the cause:

Magnus effect

The Magnus effect is the phenomenon whereby a spinning object flying in a fluid creates a whirlpool of fluid around itself, and experiences a force perpendicular to the line of motion. The overall behaviour is similar to that around an aerofoil (see lift force) with a circulation which is generated by the mechanical rotation, rather than by aerofoil action....

The Magnus effect explains commonly observed deviations from the typical trajectories or paths of non-spinning balls in sport, notably association football, table tennis, tennis,[9] volleyball, golf, baseball, cricket and in paintball marker balls.

The curved path of a golf ball known as slice or hook is due largely to the ball's spinning motion (about its vertical axis) and the Magnus effect, causing a horizontal force that moves the ball from a straight-line in its trajectory.[10] Back-spin (upper surface rotating backwards from the direction of movement) on a golf ball causes a vertical force that counteracts the force of gravity slightly, and enables the ball to remain airborne a little longer than it would were the ball not spinning: this allows the ball to travel farther than a non-spinning (about its horizontal axis) ball.

Remember I said I didn't hate ignorance but I hate hoaxers? I actually think Hoagland crosses into hoaxer territory, as I find it hard to believe he can be so ignorant to believe half the crap he puts out. If he does, he's crazy, but if he doesn't, he's a hoaxer who laughs all the way to the bank since some people pay to hear his nonsense. He's featured in the "UFO Watchdog Hall of Shame" for his BS:
Hall of shame
Richard Hoagland

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Magnus effect

How is this expressed in an equation?

From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma:

. . . Although Faraday never adduced an experiment to prove the cutting of flux linkages in the axially rotating magnet experiment, he was troubled to his last days about his interpretation of his experiment. It took until 1978 when DePalma, reference (1), did the critical experiment to determine if the form of electrical induction was the same as the flux cutting originally proposed by Faraday. The problem has been re-stated by other workers who would attempt to determine whether flux lines rotate with, or are spatially independent of the axially rotating magnet. To date, no experiment has been found either to confirm or disprove the axially rotating flux line hypothesis, reference (2). . . .

And:

The first place electrical science went wrong is when electrical phenomena which were not subject to unambiguous mathematical interpretation were simply omitted from electrical curricula.

The second place electrical science went wrong is concisely illustrated in a sequence of evolution of electrical machinery abstracted from "Exciting Electrical Machines", by E. R. Laithwaite, D.Sc., Ph.D., C.Eng., F.I.E.E., F.I.E.E.E. Professor of Heavy Electrical Engineering, Imperial Technical College, London, England. Reference (3). . . .

These are the headings in the article entitled "Additional Information On The Final Secret of Free Energy Update 15 February 1994 © 1994 by T.E. Bearden":

Introduction
Summary of the Invention
Use of Step-Charged Capacitor as the Collector
Massless Displacement Current Is Freely Available From Any Source
Every Electrical Source of Potential Is Already a Free Energy Source
Conventional 2-Wire Closed Circuit Operation
Operational Efficiency
We Must Excise the Suicidal Closed Circuit To Achieve Overunity
Legitimate Overunity Systems Comply With Well-Known Requirements
No Legitimate Overunity System Is Intentionally Made Self-Destructive
All Electrical Power Sources Are Already Free Energy Receiving Antennas
Thermodynamics and Open Overunity Systems Not In Equilibrium
Permissible Electrical Overunity Is Not Perpetual Motion
The Heat Pump Analogy
An Electrical Power Source Is a Dipolar Antenna For Free Reception of Energy
Massless Displacement Current
Requirement: Proof of Principle and Independent Test and Certification
New Circuit Phenomena Must Be Mastered
Overunity Electrical Devices Are Permissible By The Laws of Physics
In Conclusion

Originally posted by Mary Rose
These are the headings in the article entitled "Additional Information On The Final Secret of Free Energy Update 15 February 1994 © 1994 by T.E. Bearden"

A graphic from the above:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Magnus effect

How is this expressed in an equation?

There's an equation in that link, isn't that the one you're looking for?