Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 896332
• Total Topics: 15782
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 12
• Total: 16

### Author Topic: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System  (Read 3855 times)

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:07:01 AM »

Some glossary sort of definitions
angle - the idea of angles requires 3 points, 2 on the arc covered by the angle and a central origin point; the origin is the centroid of the circle containing the arc.  The angle and the arc-length for 1 time unit are the same thing.
curvature - the idea of curving, requires 2 points, from, and the to, with a forward vector, which is curved a certain amount per time...   The origin that is being moved around can be computed, but it's not really part of the system, but a projection of the real value.

spin - the idea of spin requires 0 points, but and moves all other points around it the same amount around that point, it's value is not a point, but a curvature.

Angle in unit-circle/unit-sphere math which is measured in or radians, is exactly the same as the arc-length, and really only differ in the idea of them; the values and functions applied to those values are exactly the same.
Curvature is usually measured by the arc of a curve covered in a certain amount of time...  the full arc can be covered multiple times per tick, wrapping many times, before coming to a final state where there is a principal angle plus the number of wraps it did..  A thing that has 0 curvature is a straight line.

There's a theory that one would be able to make a maxwells daemon that could move things from the cold side to the hot side, and not lose entropy, but convert that entropy into a sort of state memory which moves the entropy to the daemon instead of the space.  Being a software developer, I'm all about 'state memory' which can take the forms of many things, including implicit definition in the system itself; like there's certain things you know just from having the numbers in the first place, like in Physics there's 'inertial frames' and 'non-inertial frames' which really are 'real frames' and 'relatative frames between other frames'... the latter don't REALLY exist, except in math, and maybe for discrete systems.  Quantum physics sort of puts a box around the combination of frames that averages out any individual motion into the average of the system over time... Consider a few real frames like a box filled with a bunch of (ping pong?) balls, loosely packed, and in microgravity.  Moving the box is going to effectively make an 'invisible' acceleration force in the relative frame between the box and the balls such that the balls would 'observe' that they were falling towards the size of the wall... their impact with the box is going to adjust the boxes frame and adjust the relative frame to actually be moving faster than the box as a whole...

Anyway... if we had perfect knowledge of the current state of all spins in a system there wouldn't really be uncertainty... but the exact spin cannot be known by observation... but moreover, electrons spin, as they spin, they orbit, as they orbit, they are in bodies that are on a planet that spins, which rotates around a sun, which spins around a galaxy, which orbits other galaxies and have virtual origins they rotate around...  Even if the exact moment of spin is known for a thing, the composite of all other frames at the same time that a certain spin happens cannot be known....

Let's suppose there's a few 'states' of quantum matter... and having more than 1 or 2 states starts to give enough room to have memory just by things being in a state different from another state... so we can move a bunch of entropy from one state to another state, without losing or gaining overall energy.  What sort of states do we observe?  Photons?  Matter/condensed photons?  (black holes? pure spin 0 linear component?)  Photons seem to have a linear component and 0 spin; that is as they travel, when they arrive they are in exactly the same state as they left, unless there is an interference along their path (quantum cryptography is based on this idea).  They might have an spin component coincident with their velocity though, and spin helically in their same direction (but I expect this isn't the case; later, limit on spin vs velocity esp. 'causality' constraints).

Let's suppose also that the only 'frames' in the universe contain a velocity axis and a rotation axis, which are often nearly the same.  Let's also suppose that spin, or curvature is a primary component of things, not just a projection of the points a rigid body representing rotation, but as a truly intrinsic part of 'things', notably at the very smallest and very largest of scales.

---

I should take a moment to reflect on some origin story of this theory... I was working on a few projects this year.  the first, takes a cloud of points in an x/y/z grid, and computes from their values the shape of a surface.

https://github.com/d3x0r/MarchingTetrahedra  (notes and references in readme) https://d3x0r.github.io/MarchingTetrahedra

I then added better texturing based on the 'element type' of the voxel (water,sand,dirt,grass,granite,... ) https://d3x0r.github.io/IsoSurface-MultiTexture/

So, these make pretty pictures, one of the 'input data' choices is 'Sine Waves' which is (0=sin(x)+sin(y)+sin(z) ) where the 0 surface is drawn.  This can obviously go from -3 to 3 as a maximum value... if the '0' is moved to +/-1 the shapes start to look like steinmetz solids(wikpedia).  at +/- 2 they are more isolated forms and plot as little balls... But so far I can only say 'this is a pretty picture generator' the significance will be mentioned later.

---

So; I have this mesher that does a really good job of giving me the shape of things, now I just need a good system which I can move and collide these clouds of points... the intersection actually isn't that hard, there's a common technique called 'octree' in 3d graphics, which doesn't have to actually be a 'thing' but can just be a computation laid on an existing grid of points to easily resolve 'is there something here in this region or not'.  I did have to take a few leaps and experimental stabs that were outside of the 'official' standards; but having been an independant researcher for like ever, I have the freedom to make such choices...

But, since I first wrote my first 3D thing; there hasn't been a system where I can just add and subtract the angles, and get the relative orientation of one body to another; and this is my 25-30 year contribution...
https://github.com/d3x0r/stfrphysics#space-time-field-reactor-physics

Rotations that you can just add and subtract!  They're NOT non-linear... in fact the problem that has kept this from being done until now, is that they're maybe TOO linear.

It turns out, the sum of the angles around 3 axles of rotation is the sum of the rotation of the system.  There's a measuring system called 'taxicab geometry' which has a 'manhattan normal' which, because of the constraint of x/y summation restrictions, the sum of x+y is the distance, and not the sqrt(x*x+y*y).  The normal of rotations is also a manhattan normal; and makes it so 1 rotation (a complex number) works great, but when you start adding more dimensions, things start 'not working'.  This 'manhattan normal' is actually a 'new idea' to geometry... and none(!) of the rotation systems really account for this...

There are a bunch of references in the STFRPhysics readme; a few of those are log-quaternion systems, where they did come up with the (|x|+|y|+|z|)/2 is the effective value to convert log-quaternions into quaternions.  The basic definition of the log of a quaternion is actually somewhat 'wrong', and that lead to 'Reimannian Space' which itself is a hyperbolic space... which only leads more to 'maybe real space is curved too'   It's not, and rotation space doesn't have any invisible walls or asymptotic conversion points.

I made a lot of graphs along the way...

https://www.geogebra.org/u/d3x0r

https://www.geogebra.org/m/jnk82ncd (arccos(cos(a)+cos(b))

https://www.geogebra.org/m/pwjdwzrz  ( phase space of rotations around other rotations... is an interesting transform... meaningless to someone who doesn't know what part of the equation that represents... so 'oh look, pretty pictures, you can change with sliders)

https://www.geogebra.org/m/whnktbpt  (this is attempting to build an extended arcsin() function... arcsin ends up having infinite holes (see attached graph of 'Sine Waves' which the surface is also the 'arcsin(x,y,z)' well each plane slice through that is an arcsin curve... the problem with arcsin, is it goes up, and then backwards... never effectively leaving the origin, it just loops... cos on the other hand ended up being a solid surface...

So arccos(x) is like 'the shape of the surface of things'  and 'arccos(x) is the shape of 'no-thing', or the space outside of a surface'  That space is itself a continuous surface, but also has infinite holes in it.

So at this point, I can also realize that there are straight lines on 'Sine Waves' graph which are helical lines.... in pretty much every direction; and I begin to wonder to myself if spin is really the all there is, and that linear motion is emergent from just spins.   I still sort of think that the 'inertia' or velocity vector might just be a computed value that doesn't have a 'real' part to play... that any change to linear motion is actually a change in the helical spin paths of all the spinning things making up the body...  You really can't instantaneously move from forward to backward, you can either slow down and then reverse, or curve around a path (perhaps at a greater speed than you could stop and then reverse, batmobile grapple hook turn?)

I've sort of settled on, in the meantime, keeping the values separate, so in my new 3D phsyics system, I have time, spin and velocity as my primary dimensions.

So then, I'm getting around to initializing this frame-thing, and am looking at other ratios, such a elliptic cuves would have two scalars instead of 1 common scalar... so there's a ratio between spin and linear speed available.. it would appear that matter would be like 1/2 spin and 1/2 linear component, where the spin is still at 1x the speed of light... a photon (as previously mentioned) has only a linear component and 0 spin, the other thing would have 0 linear component and 1 spin; this would seem like a place black holes fit in.... Especially since they seem to 'warp space' such that although they are incredibly massive, they're really not... Black holes emit very high energy gamma particles - neutrons are high energy gamma particles... would seem black holes take energy from ambient energy that's otherwise lost (including the heat phonons in their area) and make matter, and is 'endothermic' to the universe; where suns on the other side are 'exothermic'.

So that leads one to wonder, We (as humans) are really good at taking things and breaking them and getting energy out... we're not so good about the other side; that is taking some energy and reforumulating matter.

We know breaking things apart (fission) releases energy... so obviously the other process should absorb energy.

---

Is there any documented sciences which are endothermic?  Yes, Geet Reactor, electromagnetic devices from John Bedini, The SEG(which, this theory validates most), ...

---

I'm kind of wander all over at this point, and I do really want to get to the point.

1) process A reacts and generates heat, that difference of heat vs the ambient cold can be used to do useful work.
2) process B reacts and consumes heat, the process itself creates more 'power' by increased current at the same voltage.

process A destroys matter(generates heat), and in the process can do other useful work.
process B creates matter(consumes heat), and in the process can do other useful work.

It would seem to me, that there's a complete energy loop available that you can 'do work' on both sides of the conversion.

This is like part 4 of a series... this one though really bring in a lot of other things, and my require some of the other videos...

---
Let's presume that the 'previous civilation' had  'clean' energy, and it was all endothermic, and non-explosive and 'in harmony with nature' but that sort of thing will lead to 'global-freezing' ... they probably blamed it on the orbit of the earth changing so the earth was further from the sun, not that they were using up all the heat producing matter (electrons even, not even nesscarily full protons).  Our current situtation is of course the opposite, we use only exothermic energy (well, except wind/solar, which also absorb entropy/heat from their systems) which is leading to global warming.

---
14Billion years... that's a really small number; feeling nearly as ridiculous to me as 'we were created 6000' years ago.
The current theory says that 'photons last FOREVER'... in an infinite universe (or at least one that has existed more than 14B years) we would be blinded by all of the photons hitting us from infinite points... but they have applied 'oh well, space stretches so they lose energy' ... that idea is a skew of the value between time and space, when really it could all be projected on a time axis, and say 'oh,photons only say linear and energetic for 14Billion years, then they scatter and become part of the background heat of the system.

Measuring the pressure of a casmir cavity probably is very similar to what our CMBR would look like 14B years from now 14B light years away.

But now I'm way WAY off the map, "WHAT? Space doesn't warp!?  Blashpemy, of course we are the most important thing in the universe, it was created 14Billion years ago!"

----

I can find evidence and references for everything I've stated... but I don't really know where to go from here either....

At this point, I'm 'in a class of my own' or rather 'I seem to be the only one involved in this class, and the teacher doesn't know jack shit' (the teacher of the class is also it's only student)

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:07:01 AM »

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2020, 01:34:29 AM »
Suduko is an interesting problem space... you know; 3x3 grids of numbers 1-9 and then a grid of those cells...
the possible combinations is fairly large, but the possible combinations that are 'valid solutions' is  pretty small...
you can throw random things together for along time and not get anything, and in fact the hardest suduko is the one that's blank.

===

I realize I've just kind of jumped into the middle of my train of thought an threw out a few highlights, I think I got the basic idea across, but probably that was lost in the details... well that and I'm not entirely sure 'The Idea' ?  In this case... can we take a exothermic work producing system, and a endothermic work producing system, and have a complete system?  It appears the universe does... but it also predicates dismissing many preconceived notions, to replace them with different ideas

It doesn't change the math - like 1+1 isn't suddenly 3, projections and all the standard things still work, and produce the same numbers (maybe with scalars in different places, and/or different units because the decay of light is just change in time (dT) and not (dT/dS) change in time per change in space.

There is no coodinate system for rotations.  Spherical trig fails at the point that it only represents the rotation with 2 angles; this is enough to get you to any point on a globe (say the earth) and either mark that point, or assume that from that point and 'up' is you standing at that point.  To also include the direction you're facing there has to be another angle. So Spherical trig is really only a 2d projection of the 3d rotation needed, and there's nothing filling that space.

There's Hopf Fibrations, which are basically a way of analysing the function of what the rotations would look like, but it's not just a direct interpretation... the hopf fibration demonstrations that are also found on youtube are renders that took time to compute what that point in space should look like.... And this rotation system I've implemented just Does that; like I pick (x/y/z) rotatate it around (xR1/yR2/zR2) by an angle, and rotate that around (xR2,yR2,zR2) and just 'get the answer'.

There's a quantum uncertainty problem related with the intersection of 3 cones... which is another way of projecting rotations into 1 d projections... and considering the full scale of angle as the diameter of the cone... which is great an all, but didn't actually tell me 'how to do it' ... so now I do it, and not even thinking about it ended up with a simpler system than the standard matrix multiplications and quaternion multiplications that normally happen (and fail, a rotation matrix, only represents 1/2 of a rotation, from -1 to 1... it doesn't account for passing 1, and going to 1 in the other direction - it's assumed that it's a linear bounce... so in the long run it doesn't matter, and it's true, that's really all you need in order to apply the curvature to a point is that principle rotation, but if you continue to work with just principle rotations, you lose the full rotation value.

A series of 5 robot arm segments with motors all in the same direction... each motor can go from -90 to +90.  If all of them are at +60, the total rotation of the hand on the end of the arm is 300 degrees around a circle (almost reaching back to the base).  The rotation matrix simplifies +300 to -60 because that's the same direction.  So when you turn off the thing and turn it back on, the current position is -60, so it sends an update to the motors to go to -10 on each, so suddenly all motors rotate from +60 to -10... Quatnerions represent only half of the rotation space also, because normally we work with 'unit quaternions' which are quaternions that are '1'.  but there's also unit quaternions that are '-1' ... but those are disregarded....   From the angle-angle-angle space, for any rotation anywhere, I can get a valid rotation matrix (basis frame) or a quaternion (which then gets applied to points using a basis frame anyway) .   The instantaneous work to do the conversion is cheap, the information required is 4 coodinates for a quaternion, and 9 or 16 for a matrix.  Rotations take 3.  Linear motion takes 3.

I could do 2D or 1D rotations by just ignoring one of the axles... (axles are axises, but things spin around them, the X axle and the X axis are the same direction in space).

Anyhow these are technical justifications that don't really matter... the point is , simpler, smaller, faster, need to compute less frequently, all better.  And Me, I'm one guy, who knows noone, with a simple equation for a rotation space (hey, since Reimann got a space named after him, suppose I get a space named after me?)  ... that everyone needs to know, to invest as much time in the real way things work as they have with the reimannian space, and we'll be good to go for a few years... From a math community standpoint; it's crazy that 'all math isn't just known' and that we actually had to discover math as we went... now maths can even be created

---

Extended arccos - that is another thing that I'd love for every computer math library and implementation to just support; that'd be nice...
I think I could even live with arcsin(x) = arccos(x) +pi/2 or -3pi/2   .. either way sin(arcsin(x)) = a good X...
but the way arcsin genuinely works is that it's the opposite slope of arccos, and is not just a parallel offset.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/na2qdbn4

https://www.geogebra.org/m/e98czhgc

(if two things behave the same, are they the same?)
So I have these mobial wound coils, following patterns that this spin geometry has reinforced, and I find effect, and then I find equivalence, and I doubt I can identify unique effect....

Like I have this coil, (two coils) would approximately the same, I put a ferrite around the core of one, and get X inductance, I put it around the other I get X*2 inductance, for 3 seprated ring ferrites...
I wind a coil on A ferrite ring, (mind you this was previously never broken ring) with a loose enough geometry to change the windings the same way, and I get X inductance.
I wind a coil, around a ferite, and get 0.5mH of indutance (for about 12 turns)  I wind an air core coil with 24 turns (48 really, has to be in series bifilar), and get 0.5mH of inductance...
so really looks like the ferrite isn't worth the bother of winding around it....(at least that's where I went the first time through this... it really seemed that ferrite within the toroid of a mobial torus was basically ineffective, because it wasn't a complete path between the inside and outside
In fact, a cuff around the toroid - passing through the center, instead of around the center - is a better place to use ferrite...  so adding it after the fact was even more affirmation it didn't matter...
but, now looking back there IS some effect... like 0.5mH from a few turns on a life-saver(somewhat bigger) ferrite is pretty high inductance for like a foot of wire...  (these ferites worked really good for joule theives, (which can be wound to be bucking.... instead of bifilar) )

----
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 03:34:40 AM by d3x0r »

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2020, 05:42:03 PM »
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-black-silicon-photodetector-efficiency-limit.html[/size]

1 photon creates 1.3 electrons... '130% efficient' though I doubt they measured the loss of heat to the panel... a really good solar panel shouldn't get hot.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2020, 05:42:03 PM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3359
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2020, 02:28:09 AM »
When doing tests of this nature it is best to build multiple prototypes

Carefully winding each one, with brand new wire.
bending the same piece of wire unwinding rewinding
you change the inductance of the wire by stretching it
coherency is decreased, and there are small changes in diameter
also the insulation is often weakened or compromised
which can result in shorting of a winding

also variances in ferrite construction, even brand of wire when different copper qualities are used.

you are correct in your observations, a difield coil cancels its own external field.
There is not enough external  flux to polarize the ceramic ferrite
Electrically it is more efficient, magnetically it is less efficient.
The energy trade off is equivalent

As an inductance used in a circuit this is the way to go

If the goal is inductance in the magnetic domain, you would want a unified field

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2020, 06:05:16 AM »
the circuit I used was a mazilli/royer - the drive coil is split with a central power source, which was behind an inductance of its own; a good amount of inductance is good there, there is a point where too much and it doesn't really support the power levels you're feeding it.

THe tests were just signal->current coil-> (and then a split)  to the test coil, which goes to a cap to ground (limiting the amount of current and getting the most pulse)
and on the other side of the split - to load - but that didn't really demonstrate anything since the flat solenoidal - just gathered into a ring but definitely don't cross through a magnet loop... which reminds me - that video just came up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGQbA2jwkWI ( here he uses a plastic bag to show 'the surface of a field from a loop of wire'  which the mobial coils violate. )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dXXnUMHbQ (just a review of classical magnetism)

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2020, 06:05:16 AM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3359
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2020, 07:20:29 AM »
If you move a permanent magnet past the ring it induces a field in the ring

Next place two opposite poles facing each other
and move the junction past the ring

Do you see what is happening here?

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2020, 10:20:41 AM »
Two magnets want to reduce the effective curvature between their poles.

south->north is a direction... all magnets want to make other magnets orient the dot product of the south to north vector in the same direction.

They, in a sense, reduce the curvature between one magnet and another.

They make the angle always the same, if they are opposing is the worse case scenario, next to equal opposition from both poles at once....

It's always a twist around a axis between the two nearest axial points of the field... if you have two lines in space, (assuming they're not parallel) have at least one closest point, between them is a right angle to both lines, and that line would be the axis of rotation of the magnets.

beyond that... where currents and electrons are involved...
we have to assume that electrons spin, and that rotating pole of a magnet past them causes them to react... , sending them off spinning in a new direction.

Edit: I prefer to use south to north, not because I'm a 'north hemispherian', but by convention of math, in a right handed system, that direction aligns with existing math.

Magnets can of course align sideways, where their actual poles are 'stable' and low energy even opposed... 1) there is a short gap on both ends in that situation, and is aided by the geometry.  If there is no 'edge' magnets will always continue to align at poles and not on an equator.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2020, 10:20:41 AM »

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 595
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2020, 03:16:20 AM »
I think most are not asking the right questions...

I take a piece of iron placed near to a magnet, I hit it the iron with a hammer to align the electron orbits/domains, remove the magnet and now the iron is a magnet in itself. Now the iron has the ability to produce a permanent field of force external to itself where before it could not. Now the iron can influence things external to itself from a distance for no other reason than something inside it has changed. How does that happen exactly?.

Imagine if we knew little of magnetism and I told you I can hit this apple and for some strange reason from that point on it would attract other apples at a distance through apparently empty space. What would you think?, what kind of reasoning would you use to rationalize the problem?. Now what if I told you a very strong magnet could levitate or act on a anything from a distance with no iron?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJeqriqRYYE  , Everything Is Magnetic: Moving Water And Levitating Frogs

In fact, everything is magnetic because atoms contain electrons or charged particles and it is the alignment of the electron orbits which act like a one turn coil having motion constituting an electron current which produces a magnetic field. Ergo everything material made of atoms/electrons is inherently magnetic because all magnetism relates to all motion which is Electro-Magnetism.

Now let's wrap it up.
-Can anyone name one thing in the universe not in perpetual motion?... you cannot thus everything is in motion, motion is energy, the universe is energy.

-Can anyone name one thing in the universe not immersed in Electro-Magnetism?... you cannot because the universe contains more than one billion trillion stars that we know of perpetually radiating EM waves everywhere in everything.

-Can anyone give a logical reason why a local electron orbit alignment producing a local magnetic field would not interact with the universal Electro-Magnetic wave field it's immersed in?... you cannot because the laws of Electro-Magnetism are known and proven through decades of experiments.

Thus... the field of force we call "magnetism" must be a mutual interaction between the alignment of electron orbits in something interacting with the universal EM wave field external to it. Anything else always degenerates into some kind of bs hocus pocus in my opinion. One cannot say, Oh look I do this and some magical force acts on something through a distance however there is absolutely nothing in the space between them in which to act. In which case were basically talking unicorns and fairies and that just doesn't cut it with anyone claiming to be intelligent.

That's a real kick in the pants isn't it?, all these years and all I have to do is ask a simple question of almost anyone, what is magnetism fundamentally?, and nobody seems to have a clue. So before we start going on about demons or magnetism, a universal field of force acting through a distance, at the very least we should try to understand what it is were actually trying to talk about.

As well, it was not "Maxwell's Demon" and at best he was a plagiarist, he cherry picked from many others brilliant experimenters work and it was Faraday who first conceived the idea to my knowledge when I read his work predating Maxwell's. However one would have to read a majority of the works of Volta, Faraday, Ampere and Weber to determine where the actual idea came from. It just seems desperate in my opinion, everyone wants to latch on to something and believe without ever questioning it. So no, it was not Maxwell's demon but Faraday's.

Regards

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3359
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2020, 03:40:06 AM »
I think it was both of them, which is why we name them together in science.
i.e. Maxwell/Faraday theorems, and the Maxwell-Faraday equation (one of 3 of Maxwell’s equations)
its clear by the progress he made in the field that he did not merely copy his peers but learned from them and combined the knowledge into an all encompassing theorem.

Much in the same way that Einstein did.
But we dont hear anyone calling Einstein a plagurist....

In any case: Maxwell’s 3 equations are the best description of electromagnetism that we have available to us.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2020, 03:40:06 AM »

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2020, 05:19:33 AM »
https://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI?t=1182 (timestamp some 15 minutes in) regarding induced magnetic fields in highly paramagnetic (ferromagnetic; I do prefer to reserve 'ferromagnetic' for those things which also will retain a field).

Not 'everything' is magnetic.  Electrostatic fields repel; remember the adage 'likes repel, opposites attract'?  That's more true of electrostatic than magnetism where it's not really about likes and dislikes abut about similarities.

Gravity also has a different characteristic field; a different falloff at a distance than either electrostatic or electromagnetic forces; even though gravity ISN'T a force, the expression of gravity acts like a force... or the projected result of gravity works like a force; and shares the math of a force, but really doesn't have anything to do with the mass of a thing.

Any Thing, with or without mass, that has linear motion, will have its velocity changed to point towards gravity; this again has nothing to do with Mass; as in `F=mV`  (force equals mass times velocity, or inertia) but just acts on the velocity component.  (similarly two equally sized gravitational things will influence each others velocity; typically the experiences we have with gravity are very small things compared with very large things; in a lab, with a torsion scale, can compare two small things, gravity is not entirely negligible in the hand-held scale; although the relative influence between hand-sized and planet-sized is effectively negligible).

Things not immersed in electromagnetism - the spaces between galaxies that are not along the axial vector.  Also no currents, because the currents are constrained within Birkland currents between the galaxies in a circuit, but not just through empty space (the truly empty space between galaxies)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kqamkYpw (esp 10:56)

2) 'not interact with the universal Electro-Magnetic wave field it's immersed in?'  it would, if there is such a thing; it does already... moving in a magnetic field causes a torsion that makes it spin.

As electons are also spinning, when their forward velocity vector goes through a field, their magnetic field axis is in the same direction as their velocity; the torque caused by entering a magnetic field and wanting to align themselves with that field causes a gyroscopic torque deflecting their motion sideways, instead of in alignment with the field, because they have their own rotational momentum, again around the axis which is in the same direction as their velocity.

'Re 'Maxwell's Daemon' if I do a google search, the common expression leads to the appropriate concept; if you have a better search term that can be applied.... 'Faraday's Demon' first result goes to 'Maxell's Demon'

(Did I share early on that video about being able to make a maxwell's demon based on the idea that the entropy lost is retained in informational knowledge of the demon?)

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 595
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2020, 05:36:22 PM »
As I said, I read most of Faraday's lectures and his description of Maxwell's demon predates it by many years. Just as Einstein did not discover relativity and De Broglie's work predates it by many years.

You cannot just Google this, lol,  you have to actually read all the literature written in the authors own words and follow the time lines. However that would require work and due diligence which seems to be lacking in this new age of alternative facts.

For example, did you know Faraday actually described how free energy could work and basically nailed it?. Did you know Faraday also gave a very detailed description of what Gravity is and how it works?.

Sounds like you boys need to do a little more reading and a little less googling. I would also point out google is a joke, it gives the most popular links not the most accurate. This is not a popularity contest.

You owe it to yourself to read Faraday and Amperes original work. These guys were absolutely brilliant and laid the foundation for electrodynamics and free energy. Weber's work also includes the longitudinal force which Faraday and Ampere could not reconcile in there work.

Regards

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2020, 05:36:22 PM »

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 595
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2020, 08:22:37 PM »
D3xor
You said the spaces between galaxies may not be immersed in an electromagnetic field.

I would ask, how would we know the galaxy was even present?. The only reason we can detect a galaxy is because it radiates EM waves. Thus we can say as a fact the space between the galaxy and our detectors must have contained EM waves... otherwise we could not have detected it in the first place.

So when you claimed a galaxy exists you are also claiming we detected its existence proving EM waves were radiating in every direction from it, some of which we detected. To claim otherwise is a complete break down of logic and reason.

Do you understand?, the fact we can see or detect any other object in the universe proves the space between everything must contain EM waves otherwise we could not detect its existence.

So not only is your claim false but a clear violation of the COE and basic reasoning. In effect, you directly contradicted yourself.

Regards

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4660
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2020, 08:39:09 PM »
Gerhard Beier ,Engineer ( and seemingly ex-GDR-spion, alias Vita " Werner Wendt")

DE102018008797
C.O.P. 10 by graphene nano plates ?

#### d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2020, 09:07:07 PM »
D3xor
You said the spaces between galaxies may not be immersed in an electromagnetic field.

I would ask, how would we know the galaxy was even present?. The only reason we can detect a galaxy is because it radiates EM waves. Thus we can say as a fact the space between the galaxy and our detectors must have contained EM waves... otherwise we could not have detected it in the first place.

So when you claimed a galaxy exists you are also claiming we detected its existence proving EM waves were radiating in every direction from it, some of which we detected. To claim otherwise is a complete break down of logic and reason.

Do you understand?, the fact we can see or detect any other object in the universe proves the space between everything must contain EM waves otherwise we could not detect its existence.

So not only is your claim false but a clear violation of the COE and basic reasoning. In effect, you directly contradicted yourself.

Regards

Edit: I find I'll end up walking back on this in the future; I haven't refined my view to include absolutely everything; certain EM fields do have magnetic component or induction in coils wouldn't work... but then is that the same force as hitting a photonic sensor like a solar cell/cmos sensor?

I didn't say 'immersed in electromagnetic field' I said 'magnetic field'....

EM fields are not magnetic fields, nor static fields, but as their name says electro-magnetic and as such are a hybrid.

There's no contradiction, merely an assumption I was talking about something I wasn't.

EM Fields are affected by magnetic fields ( https://youtu.be/Kp_kqamkYpw?t=476 )
Photons travelling through empty space are not an do not make a magnetic field.[/size]
EM Fields are not measured in Joules or Teslas.

I appreciate the recommendation to read information, and as you said google is bad, so rather than just saying 'read things' maybe you can provide a link to something useful?
I did find Eric Dollard[size=78%]'s lone pine writings quite enlightening; which goes back to Maxwell and Faraday's equations[/size]

@lancaIV,
re 'DE102018008797'  I'm not sure where this number is meaningful, even with the name Gerhard Beier I don't find anything with said (patent?) number

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4660
##### Re: Towards A Complete Maxwell's Daemon System
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2020, 09:16:23 PM »