New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

Dear tadchem:

"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
newsZednbW_4J4Ws9DfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
....

He could build up or shut down a magnetic field that was aligned
with the axis of the ring. Of course, that will "spray" energy
everywhere.. not just the ring.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in
message news:BFb3e.3965$3C6.1606@fed1read01...

It would also make it very difficult to account for all the energy in the
system quantitatively.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Dear Tom,

tadchem wrote:

LOL, I knew you would say that Tom. Actually I had typed "and say the
atoms are traveling at a few cm per second." I removed that before
posting because I thought it was an insult to your intelligence. Look
Tom, for the sake of proving a point, let's say the atoms are
traveling slow enough for the super cray to handle the data input.
Wow! :-)



Side A
are
of this

Tom, you give it momentum while it's moving but then you take away
that momentum when it stops. So the nano device moves, then stops and
waits to be hit, then moves away, then stops-- slow moving atoms, OK.
This is fun. I feel like I'm riding the Matterhorn. ;-)



contact
atoms
the
allowing
know how

Thank you. You're not Japanese are you, btw?


my
current
electromagnetic
under
predictions,
error is
overlooking a

For example? The simulations were tested on a wide range of tests.
For example, one of the latest test was taking a toroid (magnetic
material) and wrapping wire around the toroid. Sounds common so far.
Then I added a second winding. This winding consisted of very long
straight wires. So you're looking sideways at the toroid. You have
wire that's going up through the toroid, but in this case the wire
continues to travel up for over a foot. That is, the wire extends a
foot below and above the toroid. Although the wire does not extend
sideways away from the toroid. So you have very long vertical wires.
What this does is it tests the electrodynamics and magnetic equations
at such angles. The simulation results were perfect.



lost
the
of it:
solid. It
magnetic
ordering
are
conditions the
the
magnetic
of the
small
magnetic
electric
adiabatic

I never said nor insinuated that the Magnetocaloric effect is evolved
in the two wire ring test. That should go without saying since that
test has no magnetic materials. I am puzzled why you would say so
since I clearly stated that there were no magnetic materials in that
test. One of the goals of that test was to demonstrate that the
program would not introduce any source of free energy without the
magnetic materials.


magnetic
to
current.
test
breaking
different.]

I'm not sure you understand the method. You have a loop of wire.
The program segments the wire into thousands of pieces. This is the
only method to equate the net results of a complex system. You're
not breaking any wires. You're simply *analyzing* each segment of
the wire. Yes, there are equations for a simple round circle of
current as far as calculating the magnetic fields. Also someone may
have constructed the math for the electromagnetic fields of a circle of
current at di/dt, but I haven't seen any. That's beside the point
since I intended on plugging in complex wire designs beyond a simple
circle. Segmenting is the way to go. Takes a lot of work but it's
worth it and yields very accurate results.




Simulations were based on experiments.



No. That would take probably 2 minutes to add to the program. My
initial goal is spot the source of free energy. I already know such
losses exist.


Same answer.


The only thermal loss would be from the magnetic material becoming
colder. I would go out of my way to actually blow air or liquid across
the core to keep it as close to room temperature. As far as heat from
current, that's would be part of wire resistance.


Yes. The initial simulations did not, but the last version used Ising
simulation code to compute the hysteresis losses. As mentioned, the
last version still possessed a flaw in that the code would
theoretically break down at magnetic saturation levels. This did not
affect the free energy design that had the moving parts, as displayed
in the two animations. That particular design did not require
saturations. Although, all solid state design I have so far require
extremely high saturations. That is why I'm writing the grand final
version, which will eliminate the saturation limit. This is going into
extreme details of the project that would take me months to catch you
up to speed. So I apologize if I did not answer your question to your
satisfaction. I am still not certain that I can discover a solid-state
design. If not, then I will build the machine described in the
research paper.
As far as radiation resistance, which is caused by the electromagnetic
far field of an oscillating signal, no. That's simply a limit on
frequency relative to core size. In my designs the radiation
resistance will be a fraction.



Yes.


conductors?

No. You don't see to understand. The simulations were for
verification purposes. You do not need to introduce elasticity, nor do
I need to introduce air friction and such. When you perform tests to
verify a key area, you do NOT want to introduce other forces. That's
one great aspect of computers; i.e., you can keep your tests pure and
blemish free. If I did introduce such forces, and I could, then I
simply have to separate that energy because I need to focus on the
kinetic energy relative to electrodynamics energy. The program keeps a
tally on all the energies.

Again, the goal is to prove and hone in on the potentially free source
of free energy. We can concentrate on overcoming such losses when we
prove the effect exists.

the

The power source was a current source. The power is computed by the
induced voltages times current. If the induced voltage is with the
current then power is gained. If the induced voltage is against the
current then power is lost.

Kind regards,
Paul

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1112369941.261322.205430@l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

c-bar = sqrt(8*k*T/pi*m)

Thus velocity is proportional to the square root of temperature [inversely,
temperature is proportional to the square of velocity] and inversely
proportional to the square root of mass.

Oxygen moves at 1.40 km/sec at 298 °K, so to slow it down to 100 cm/sec we
would have to cool it to 298*(100/140000)^2 = 0.00015 Kelvins. You plan to
extract energy from that?


At what cost of energy? let us figure this out:
What is the mass M of your nano device?
How much t time are you taking to move it?
How far x are you moving it?

You need to move it a distance x/2 in a time t/2 at an acceleration a from
rest to a velocity v. From elementary dynamics we calculate that the
acceleration a = 4*x/t^2 The force applied to the nano devide is F = M*a =
M*4*x/t^2. The energy required to perform this feat is E = f*(x/2) =
2*M*x^2/t^2. Repeat this for the deceleration phase, and you have
*expended* 4*M*x^2/t^2 just to get your nano device *into position* to
intercept a gas molecule moving at a 'few cm per second.'

How much more massive is your nano device than a single gas molecule? Do
your simulations consider the mass of the nano device and the energy
required to move it around?


More like riding a shuttle train to catch up with a table tennis ball. B-(


I've studied a little Japanese, I watch a lot of anime, I read a little
manga (translated), and I'm trying my hand at calligraphy (I painted
"watashi no kuruma desu" in Hiragana over the driver's door to my car - a
little Shinto 'charm' of protection against theft).

Your question suggests you have not heard of James Clerk Maxwell's demon:
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]


Are you asking me to critique your numerical method without ever seeing the
code? I am not that foolish. I will point out that as recently as 20 years
ago people who were very enthusiastic about numerical modeling and
supercomputers applied their theories to climate modelling and concluded
that the earth was getting warmer because the atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels were increasing. All the models agreed that this was happening,
although they were not in agreement about the magnitude of the effect. Then
someone tried climate modelling in a *reverse time* protocol, and found that
as they extrapolated back into the past the earth *also* got warmer. even
when they pre-programmed the known lower values of carbon dioxide, the
calculated values of the mean climate temperature seemed to gfet warmer the
further the extrapolations went away from the present.

A few of us who were schooled in Numerical Analysis and computer algorithms
recognized the problem immediately. In fact, some (myself included) had
recognized the probable risk of this error even before the 'reversed time'
calculations were run.

The problem arose because of what numerical analysts call 'accumulated
roundoff error.' When a calculation produces a result that is beyond the
number of digits supported by the hardware, the result must be rounded.
According to approved ASTM protocols, residues less than 0.5 are rounded
down, residues greater than 0.5 are rounded up, and residues equal to 0.5
are rounded to an even digit - i.e. 1.5 and 2.5 are both rounded to 2.
However, hardware rounding in standard computer designs used to always round
*UP*. This means the self-correcting effect of the ASTM protocol for
rounding was absent, and sometimes results that should have been rounded
down were rounded up. When you are performing a model calculation that
calculates *billions* of temperatures and only 1 in 20 to 40 is rounded up
when it should be rounded down, the "global average" (pun intended) becomes
artificially elevated.

The claims made in the 1980's that the sea level would rise by 300 meters in
50 years are patently absurd - now. They *seemed* reliable then to people
who were not aware of the problem of accumulaed roundoff error. But what
would they know - they weren't numerical analysts, they were climatologists.

It is a common problem that trained minds misinterpret something and are led
down a primrose path because the anomalous results do not trigger them to
question their assumptions.

tadchem wrote:
[inversely,

You still don't get it my friend. I'm demonstrating an extremely
simple idea so that you can understand that the laws of thermodynamics
break at the atomic scale. So your only defense now is that such a
nano test seems impractical. Trust me, lol, it has nothing to do with
my research paper. I entered into the thermodynamics discussion with
you because you refused to believe that my premise could be possible
due to the laws of thermodynamics at the atomic level. So, will you so
kindly admit that this tiny cube and nano assertion is theoretically
possible?



Momentum consumes energy when an object accelerates and momentum gives
energy when the object decelerates. :-) If you accelerate an object
and then decelerate it back to the original speed then there's no net
loss due to momentum. I am somewhat amused how you get so easily
caught up in noise such as friction, losses, etc. when this has nothing
to do with losses and such but rather it's an assertion to prove or
disprove a theory. In fact, when you perform experiments to prove or
disprove theories, you want to eliminate as much noise as possible.


Do

Wow, LOL! This has nothing to do with my research paper. I am not
working with nano devices. You've made numerous comments in recent
posts that demonstrate you did not even read a fraction of my wiki
project.

Sincerely,
Paul