They don't say what the field cost. But one dose last 11 hours.

The pump savings look terrific.

Great possibility for other applications. It was interesting about the blood.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-oil-keystone-pipeline-electric-fields.html

 

the talk about the magnetic field reducing viscosity sounds like the ads for magnets to put on your gas line in your car.

 

i thought those magnets went on water pipes to "soften" the water. get rid of those expensive and messy salt units that claim to soften hard water. just throw them out. Our scientifically proven magnet system will replace it easily and quickly without all the mess!

 

I remember those.....and those venturi plates that you bolted underneath the carburetor. Some in the air cleaner.

And of course the water atomizer.

Those are quite some pump savings.....but it didn’t show the field setup or the cost.

And I hadn't heard of the effect on blood.

But if it really reduces the turbulence that much....the oil companies will be using it.

I thought it was curious that you don't have to have a continuous field on.

 

Interesting solution. And yeah, the blood flow thing is interesting. Could bleeding be mitigated (or made worse) by exposure to the appropriate field?

 

Somehow magnetic fields was substituted for electric fields. Their is a huge difference between them.

 

the talk about the magnetic field reducing viscosity sounds like the ads for magnets to put on your gas line in your car.

Definitely says, electric field. Also, electric field can easily align molecules (remove random orientation) and decrease viscosity in the direction of the field (while, like the article says increase viscosity normal to the field.

Also, an 11 hour effect is not unreasonable as it takes a long time to re-randomize high molecular weight molecules - especially when they are in a alignment in a flow direction that promotes that alignment.

This will definitely work - a school like Temple knows the damage that falsified data has done at other schools. I am sure it is not a scam.

 

Also, an 11 hour effect is not unreasonable as it takes a long time to re-randomize high molecular weight molecules - especially when they are in a alignment in a flow direction that promotes that alignment.

Not quibbling about the article. Apparently, Professor Tao is the real deal too.

However, 11 hours (approximately 40X10^12 nanoseconds) for the randomization of macromolecules seems more than a few orders of magnitude too long for liquids, based on my experience with fluorescence polarization. Here is a chart modeling the effects of molecular weight on loss of fluorescence polarization.



Source: http://www.lifetechnologies.com/us/...-highlights/fluorescence-polarization-fp.html

With a fluorescence half life of 20 nS, there is a great deal of randomiztion for molecules with molecular weights up to 100,000. On what sort of molecules and matrices was your comment based?

John

 

Not quibbling about the article. Apparently, Professor Tao is the real deal too.

However, 11 hours (approximately 40X10^12 nanoseconds) for the randomization of macromolecules seems more than a few orders of magnitude too long for liquids, based on my experience with fluorescence polarization. Here is a chart modeling the effects of molecular weight on loss of fluorescence polarization.

I think it's more of a system effect. The polarization forms a system that seeks to minimize local energy like the alignment of small iron dipole particles into lines of iron filings from the magnetic field (field lines don't actually exist) of a magnet or electric field lines in a fluid. Each set of macromolecules is locked into it's minimized energy state alignment by others that are in turn interlocked. When away from the field the created system still exists as a static system that requires energy (or the major loss of energy as a system) to disrupt it from the charged minimized energy state.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/physicsdemos/3174122601/in/photostream/

 

Not quibbling about the article. Apparently, Professor Tao is the real deal too.

However, 11 hours (approximately 40X10^12 nanoseconds) for the randomization of macromolecules seems more than a few orders of magnitude too long for liquids, based on my experience with fluorescence polarization. Here is a chart modeling the effects of molecular weight on loss of fluorescence polarization.

View attachment 81268

Source: http://www.lifetechnologies.com/us/...-highlights/fluorescence-polarization-fp.html

With a fluorescence half life of 20 nS, there is a great deal of randomiztion for molecules with molecular weights up to 100,000. On what sort of molecules and matrices was your comment based?

John

Polarizing with the electric field from polarized light vs. An electric field from high voltage charge will give you very different results.

I worked with A two phase system that tended to form 'emulsions'. Pressure and flow were necessary to prevent reforming the micelles and high viscosity structures. It was almost 20 years ago. I showed this article to a former coworker who was full time on the project for several years. He didn't know if he should laugh or cry.

Oil-sands are ugly mixtures with lots of heteroatom compounds that will form 3-d supramolecular H-bonded structures that build viscosity much higher than molecular weight alone would indicate. They may not be 2-phase emulsions but still likely supramolecular 3-D structures. The polarization eliminates the structure to a great degree and increases laminar orientation with flow direction which is maintained by pressure and flow.

 

If it is like an ordered emulsion, I can believe it. I have had emulsions last for years until I got tired of looking at them and threw them out. If they are that ordered, have they been subjected to X-ray diffraction analysis? I suspect there are experiments to support the theory that weren't mentioned in the news release. My reference point was, of course, ordinary solutions in water, not liquid crystals and emulsions.

Thanks for the further explanations.

John

 

Definitely says, electric field. Also, electric field can easily align molecules (remove random orientation) and decrease viscosity in the direction of the field (while, like the article says increase viscosity normal to the field.

Also, an 11 hour effect is not unreasonable as it takes a long time to re-randomize high molecular weight molecules - especially when they are in a alignment in a flow direction that promotes that alignment.

This will definitely work - a school like Temple knows the damage that falsified data has done at other schools. I am sure it is not a scam.

any moving electric field creates a magnetic field. just as any changing magnetic field creates an electric field.

 

There's no such thing as an object that is not moving. Everything in the known universe is moving.

 

Relativity rules.

 

For those interested, the paper can be found at:

https://journals.aps.org/pre/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevE.91.012304

It's a pretty readable (and well-written) paper.

 

I think we will see more of this in the future.
And I think we'll come to find that the "field" effect is always composed of two equal orthogonal components...the electric and magnetic.

That is a huge change in viscosity at ambient temps.
This is a huge savings in energy.

Perhaps in the future, this might be applied to ships and planes.

Maybe Scotty's field coils are in our future after all.