[Physics] Magnets and gas bubbles in water. Was: Re:How to answer ?

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Zoltan and group,


On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Zoltan Losonc <feprinciples at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Arend,
>
> Doug’s experiment is to the point, and he has proven experimentally that the helical movement of the electrolyte is due to the Lorentz force, and not caused by mysterious longitudinal magnetic aether currents. But this is a well established fact in electrical engineering, and there was really no need to prove it, because it has been already proven countless times in different forms.

Well, what he has shown is that with concentrically placed electrodies
- and thus a well defined radial direction of the (ion) current - you
can induce helical movements of either the bubbles or the ions in the
electrolyte due to the Lorentz force.

However, "magnet flipper" did not use concentric placed electrodes.
One of his electrodes is a magnet, the other is a conducting plate
placed _underneath_ the magnet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY

In this case, the current near the sides of the magnet would be
predominantly up or down and not so much in a radial direction, while
you would expect the biggest currents to occur at the bottom of the
magnet along the insulating ring supporting the magnet.

On the top of the magnet, one would expect relatively small radial ion
currents, yet we do seem to see a rather strong vortex right on top of
the magnet.

>
> But Pollack’s discovery (which most of us surely have already heard about) has nothing to do with the subject we are trying to discuss. It is not a sign of a genuine researcher scientist to jump aimlessly from subject to subject, losing focus in the process and achieving nothing in the end.

Well, it could be that the Lorentz force (also) acts upon the bubbles
themselves, or rather on the EZ layer which surrounds them. However,
if the bubble-carried current is "up" as is the magnetic field in
Doug's experiment, that would not be the case. With a small magnet,
where the field lines loop back towards the other pole, this might
very well be a considerable effect.

In other words: it may be too easy to explain the whole thing as "just
the Lorentz force acting upon moving ions".,


>Why don’t we focus a little bit on your writings and on the writings of Paul?
> Even if not openly admitted, it is obvious that we have been invited to this mailing list to discuss your “new discovery” and Paul’s ideas.

Yes, of course that is part of the reason, but definitely not the only
one. Everyone is free to discuss whatever they like, provided things
do not get out of hand. So, the idea is that my work is just *a*
subject which can be discussed and I do not consider myself any
different from the other participants on the list, other than that I
may have to step in when things do get out of hand, which so far I
only had to do once.

>
> Your idea of “electrolyte spinning along with the magnetic aether vortex…” has been proven to be wrong, so we can close that issue.

Well, one never knows what new information might come forth, but as
far as I can tell now, the idea that the magnetic field [B] is aligned
with the aether flow velocity field [v] seems to be the better
explanation, indeed.

> Let’s talk now about the next problem in your articles that you have started, namely the subject of charged particles as aether vortices.

> You wrote that the forces between such particles can be explained by the thrust acting on the acoustically excited Helmholz resonator. How do you explain this process in details?
>

Yes, that was my best guess at the time. If particles consists of a
number of vortices or other kind of rotating structures and the
electric field is rotation free (as per the Helmholtz decomposition),
somehow the electric force must propagate trough the medium and
somehow result in the movement of (charged) particles.

I considered an acoustically excited Helmholtz resonator as a possible
foundation for finding an explanation for the forces between such
particles.

However, now that I reconsidered the toroidal topology and postulated
the (free) electron to have such topology, I think a better
explanation can be found that way.

Regards,

Arend.