Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I would ask you to listen carefully to his exposition. He claims that the device is a patented invention of a subscriber to his channel, his name is Tim.
Also, SirZerp has only a handful of subscribers and each video since 2006 has had only had a few views. Considering how important it is( and I remember some of SirZerp early videos when it was a Phd project) I think Ken is not inaccurately describing the dismal impact of this invention by Tim.
As to seeing magnetism, if you can see light you see magnetism! Of course ken is here talking about the volume around a powerful magnet which is usually displayed by iron filings.
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/40756-take-a-seat-and-watch-a/
Edwin Jaynes was very adamant on this. So were - among many others - two Russian pioneers of rocketry and astronautics Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Yuri Kondratyuk.
I started this thread with a reference to the work of Ivor Catt. His principle evidence is that the energy between transmission lines is not static and neither is the energy within a capacitor or a flux capacitor (PMH). Leaving energy undefined but fundamentally distinguishable into magnetic and electric. Ivor announces the death of the electric current.
This video expounds the natural behaviours observed and named by science without illuminating the settled electron / photon view.
The "laws of thermodynamics" are very suspect, especially when they are given an independent fundmental position. In my opinion they are a subset of observations related to the greater magneto Thermo sono electro complex of behaviours.
The mechanical philosophy , the mechanical paradigm has a long history of being subservient to the more esoteric philosophies, so much so that Mechanics was not accepted as an Academic subject. Evenso the philosophy necessarily contains myths and facts as human creations. These arise out of our human sensibilities in interacting with the space around us.
Let me try to explain. Suppose we conduct an experiment with drawing a ball from an opaque urn, which contains 1 black and 99 white balls, and placing it back into the urn after each drawing. That's all the information available to the person who is required to make a prediction. Suppose we are planning to conduct this experiment 1000 times, and we would like to know how many times we will get the black ball. Obviously, it is not possible to say for sure how many times we'll get the black ball. But, with the information available to us, our best prediction is that we will get the black ball 10 times. Does this prediction have anything to do with "magneto Thermo sono electro complex of behaviours"? No it does not. Does this prediction have anything to do with observations? No it does not, unless, of course, these observations constitute an addition to the information on the basis of which we are making our prediction.
The same is true with the "laws of thermodynamics" and with the "laws of quantum mechanics". Strictly speaking these "laws" have little to do with nature per se, or even with human experience. These "laws" are about the best predictions which are determined solely and precisely by the information available to the intelligent being who is making the prediction. In other words, these are logical laws (or epistemological laws, if you wish) and not ontological ones.
The reason we predict that we'll get the black ball 10 times in the thought experiment above is not that we have conducted such an experiment (my guess is that no one has ever conducted such a silly experiment), and the experience has convinced us in that outcome. The reason is purely logical. If we had more information, our best prediction would be different being conditioned on that extra information. To put it differently, these laws are about human inference, and not about human experience, and as such it is not quite correct to relate them directly to magnetic, or any other natural phenomena (except for the phenomenon of intelligent life, of course, which is a natural phenomenon after all).
Recomended reading: Unpublished work by Edwin Jaynes The Second Law as Physical Fact and as Human Inference
P.S. In the case of quantum mechanics, we ought to be a bit more cautious and hedge our bets: The laws of quantum mechanics represent - as Jaynes succinctly put it - a kind of omelette of ontological and epistemological laws intricately scrambled together, unscrambling of which is a task of paramount importance.
Check it out: A "Drum" of Ferromagnetic Needles Rotating In Magnetic Field (click here)
To echo Eric Laithwaite of the "infamous" Experiment with the spinning wheel (click here): this is not a conjuring trick - this is a fact of science. Still, are we dealing here with a genuine magnetic phenomenon or merely witnessing an intricate tether dynamics effect that has nothing to do with electromagnetism? Another relevant question: Aren't the forces acting on molecular level in the ordinary twisted rope represent, in fact, electromagnetic forces which are manifested as a net mechanical torque?
The twisted rope can behave in unexpected and quite counter-intuitive ways. Here is a quote from Space Tethers and Space Elevators - an interesting read by Michel van Pelt - emphasizing the point:
The rotating wave behaviours I expected but not the buckling and the final shattering!
At these speeds the gravitational effect is a minor perturbation. The aerodynamic coupling I suspect is a major factor. However the effect I hoped to see was that investigated by Arago, the "magnetic " coupling to a paramagnetic substance.
The shape and propagation of the crack I think demonstrates this, but requires further experimentation.
The cracks are similar to the Lichtenberg" lightning " form, suggesting a powerful " electric" discharge occurs at break down rotation . This is not a modulus extension breakdown , although it clearly follows a plastic phase in the disc.
The sono or vibration effect of the motor itself has to be included in the final outcome, creating cymatic patterns . The heat or Thermo effect is not empirically observed in this demonstration.
http://news.osu.edu/news/2015/03/23/heatmag/
Nicely put. However the experiment is not silly and has been done in principle every time we do the lottery!
The measures or Metrons we use are per se of little use beyond giving us a tally mark or a statement of account. However it is the reasoning and insight and inference as well as deductions we structure by them that is the content.
The main part of a function in the C language can return a tally mark. That tally mark is useful as a system process check. The process may involve moving a charge in an electric field, or the mathematical model of that observed behaviour. The output may be represented as a CGI animation giving an approximately accurate animation of the observed phenomena.
That model, no matter how glitzed up, is our best guess of how a system might behave under the given constraints. The " laws" or rather principles used in constructing that model constitute an expertise . That we call them laws is a remnant of the religious influence of the former scientific clerics that dominated early science, and still have a behind scenes powerful influence on the myths of science, including and principally so the Laws of Thermodynamics!
Thanks for this fascinating video by The Slow Mo Guys testing a rotating disc to disintegration into dust. This is precisely the kind of stuff I was talking about few months back:
What is Antimatter?
Annihilation of Matter and Antimatter
It would be interesting to repeat the experiment with two discs rotating in opposite directions with those discs coming into contact right before spin rate gets to the breaking point. Another setup for the experiment would be shooting a small bullet at the spinning disc while it is approaching the disintegration point.