Capitolo 3 Immobili Pulsati Sistemi: Armatura Magnetica di Charles Flynn, Armatura Magnetica di Lawrence Tseung, I Trasformatori di Thane Heins, L'alta. Gli Esperimenti di James Brock, Il Brevetto di Pietro Grandics, Le Piramidi di Les Brown, L'analisi Della Piramide di Joseph Cater, I Dispositivi di Pier Luigi Ighina,.

Full text of ' Andrew ABOLAFIA Static Field Converter Contact Email: Andrew@InventorOne.com Contact Phone: 518-632-9193 Contact Fax: 518-632-9192 The Andrew Abolafia Co. PO Box 291 Granville, NY 12832 Andrew Abolafia October 23, 2007 -- Hartford, NY — The Andrew Abolafia Company, after more than four years of research on an intellectual property (Static Field Converter) in collaboration with the University at Buffalo, SUNY, produced results that suggest The Andrew Abolafia Company’s Static Field Converter taps a new source of energy. Fsx P3d Alabeo C172rg Cut Class Iii. ANSYS Finite Element Analysis computer simulation yields the data that support that interpretation. It has helped enable The Static Field Converter to evolve and be refined in conjunction with experimentation at the University at Buffalo.

The Static Field Converter (patented and patents pending) is an invention that converts the energy in a static magnetic field into usable electrical energy. The significance of the innovation is that the energy stored in some permanent magnet materials can be tapped. The magnitude of the energy is large enough to make a significant impact in reducing the U.S. Addiction to oil as well as mitigate the destruction of the environment. Large amounts of electricity generated by the invention can produce large amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used as fuel in most applications that now require fossil fuels.

It can also be used to power fuel cells. The exhaust is water. Http://www.in ventorone.com/ Publications 1. Soliman and M.

Safiuddin, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, A. Abolafia, The Andrew Abolafia Co., Hartford, NY, 'Feasibility Study of Rotating Shield Generator,' AIAA-2005-5646. 3rd International Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, California, August 15-18, 2005. Puppala A K, Soliman M, Safiuddin M, Abolafia A, 'Feasibility Study of Static Field Converter,' 3rd International Industrial Simulation Conference 2005 ISC'2005, pp 210-13, Berlin, Germany June 9-11, 2005. Background A small business matching grant (March, 2003) between TCIE (The Center for Industrial Effectiveness-SUNY, Buffalo) and The Andrew Abolafia Company of Hartford, NY initiated research on the Abolafia Company's patented technology (published on this web site) at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, electrical engineering department. The patent (and patents pending) are based upon a High Temperature Superconductor energy conversion device termed a 'Static Field Converter' that uses a hemispherical High Temperature Superconductor (HTS) element as a rotor. The invention converts the energy in a static magnetic field into useable electrical power.

That energy can be significant, clean and abundant. We applied for and received the grant because we were interested in knowing the feasibility of construction of the device. More than four years of research later an electrical engineering graduate student at UB who worked on the project used the research as the basis of his Master's and Doctoral dissertations and several scientific papers were produced.

An analysis was done, using a Finite Element Analysis program, assuming perfect diamagnetic properties for the HTS superconductor. 'Because of the high flux density values of the Permanent Magnet (PM) used in the simulations, and the assumption that the superconductor behaves ideally as a perfect diamagnetic material, the voltage output observed in the simulation was appreciable. To meet the counter torque when power is being taken out from the system, there must be power input from the prime mover, or the Permanent Magnet must constantly lose its magnetic energy.' 1 Conclusion: The New Source of Energy The Andrew Abolafia Company's conclusion is that power is coming from the Permanent Magnet and that the energy contained in certain permanent magnetic materials is appreciable enough to be considered as a hitherto untapped, abundant, clean source of energy that can make fossil fuels obsolete.

The substitution of an electromagnet for the permanent magnet would produce data that would support energy being consumed from the magnetic source. The University at Buffalo, SUNY, does not concur with this conclusion but concludes the invention is a promising new type of generator. Abstract If the wave form of the output power of the invention is symmetrical (which it is) a perfectly diamagnetic rotor will be repelled by the same magnitude of torque when it exits the magnetic fields of the magnet and output coil as when it enters them (Magnetostatic analysis is appropriate). No energy input is necessary upon exiting the magnetic fields (the rotor, a perfect diamagnet, is always repelled by a magnetic field). A prime mover is only necessary upon entering the combined magnetic fields of the magnet and coil (the rotor, a perfect diamagnet, is always repelled by a magnetic field).

The torques acting on the rotor are equal and opposite resulting in zero net torque on the rotor. Therefore a net power of zero horsepower from the prime mover (minus losses) can drive the rotor. The energy to generate the electric power from the Static Field Converter can only come from the magnet. If there is doubt simply substitute an electromagnet. An FEA computer simulation of the invention can corroborate our observations and conclusions at any company, university or research facility in the world with the appropriate IT resources. Summation Some types of Permanent Magnetic materials can be used as a new source of energy. Puppala, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, NY 'Doctoral Dissertation, Dept, of Electrical Engineering,' pp.2-3, September, 2007.

Andrew Abolafia is the founder and CEO of the Andrew Abolafia Company (InventorOne.com) located in yjr Northeastern USA. He has and continues to serve as consultant to Fortune 500 clients. Abolafia holds a Summa Cum Laude Bachelors degree from York College.

He also holds a diploma in computer programming from Chubb Institute. He has held positions of trust and responsibility at Eagle Electric Manufacturing Company, Inc., Trichem, Inc. And Pepsico, Inc. He is available to serve as a consultant and expert witness in computer related fields such as software, software engineering, software liability, computer languages and programming, the Internet, Internet related software, infrastructure and computer security.

Nicola Scafetta has with Adriano Mazzarella on the correlation of the spectral frequencies of M7 and greater earthquakes and oceanic oscillations and length of day (LOD). He ascribes those oscillations and the LOD variation to the astronomical forcings identified in earlier papers which have similar spectral frequency peaks. Abstract We compare the NOAA Significant Earthquake Historical database versus typical climatic indices and the length of the day (LOD). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) record is mainly adopted because most of the analyzed earthquakes occurred at the land boundaries of the Pacific Plate. The NOAA catalog contains information on destructive earthquakes. Using advanced spectral and magnitude squared coherence methodologies, we found that the magnitude M ≥ 7earthquake annual frequency and the PDO record share common frequencies at about 9-, 20-, and 50- to 60-year periods, which are typically found in climate records and among the solar and lunar harmonics.

The two records are negatively correlated at the 20- and 50- to 60-year timescales and positively correlated at the 9-year and lower timescales. We use a simple harmonic model to forecast the M ≥ 7significant earthquake annual frequency for the next decades.

The next 15 years should be characterized by a relatively high M ≥ 7earthquake activity (on average 10–12 occurrences per year) with possible maxima in 2020 and 2030 and a minimum in the 2040s. On the 60-year scale, the LOD is found to be highly correlated with the earthquake record ( r = 0.51for 1900–1994, and r = 0.95for 1910–1970). However, the LOD variations appear to be too small to be the primary earthquake trigger. Our results suggest that large earthquakes are triggered by crust deformations induced by, and/or linked to climatic and oceanic oscillations induced by astronomical forcings, which also regulate the LOD. The cause of this anti-correlation awaits further study. One of the most feasible explanations was presented by Gregori (2002) who attributed to the Earth’s core being a leaky capacitor or a battery; when solar activity is high, the Earth’s core is charged, whereas when the Sun’s activity is in low phase, the core in turn discharges energy. Another theory is cosmic rays; when the solar activity is low, the amount of ionized cosmic rays with stronger penetration capability increases (Kirby, 2007, and others); the increased cosmic rays may heat up the Earth’s interior to discharge more energy.

Quote: “with possible maxima in 2020 and 2030” De Santis (INGV) EGU2014: “.In analogy with critical point phenomena characterized by some cumulative quantity, we fit the surface extent of this anomaly over the last 400 yr with power law or logarithmic functions in reverse time, also decorated by log-periodic oscillations, whose final singularity (a critical point tc) reveals a great change in the near future (2034 ± 3 yr), when the SAA area reaches almost a hemisphere.” We live in interesting times. Assuming there is something in a connection I wonder whether there is a switch between fewer large events and more small events? The latter will be poorly or not recorded in history.

Few candidate mechanisms which would affect stress in the crust come to mind. There is a magnetic linkage with the sun, seems somehow too minor.Gravitational never seems to show much in the way of correlation where the much stronger lunar or seasonal solar ought to figure before tiny effects from remote planets, which anyway are not definitely known to affect the sun. I suggest having a look at the theories of Pier Luigi Ighina regarding the relationship between the sun and the earth as well as the different types of atoms including magnetic atoms!

He studied atoms by slowing them down whereas “main stream” scientists study atoms by “energising” them and effectively studying an already excited atom! His work is in Italian but I have largely translated his book “la scoperta dell’atomo magnetico” into english if anyone is interested? There may be some merit in his ideas? Scafetta & Mazzarella (2015). Spectral coherence between climate oscillations and the M ≥ 7 earthquake historical worldwide record.

Natural Hazards. NOAA NGDC Earthquake Data and Information Centennial Earthquake Catalog tallbloke (January 28, 2015 at 8:57 pm) wrote: “[] I think the larger multi-decadal changes LOD are celestially driven. Paul Vaughan disagrees.” Not exactly “disagrees”. But there certainly doesn’t ever seem to be the time (nor does it seem there ever will be the time) to get into a technically detailed comparison & contrast of JEV osculating element stats versus JEV amplitude stats. But I can assert this: It’s the same thing that drives Milankovitch.

Paul Vaughn, the Milankovitch aspect of your graphic above is not clear to me, possibly because I do not understand the acronym JEV. All Milankovitch cycles except eccentricity balance between seasons and hemispheres and the “tropics” extend to both hemispheres. Your graphic time series suggests a fixation with the 100kyr M cycle. What of the stronger and more stable 400kyr cycle that is seemingly absent in the ice and ocean cores?

Why have you excluded the Indian and Atlantic oceans from tropical SST? @Tallbloke: Um, that’s a bit strong, IMHO. WIllis admits that not finding anything is not proof of nonexistence, but just embraces it as way to strongly implying “nothing to see”. I’ve tried on a couple of his threads to point out fairly obvious “issues”, but not seen much of it ‘catch’. (Simple example: When he went looking for a sunspot cycle match and used the AVERAGE length, when it is known that the sunspot cycle is bi-modal with short (near 9) and long (near 12-14) year types and nearly strictly avoiding the average (it’s a dip in the distribution).

So looking most where there is a dip is ‘right’ how? No response So I’d call it more “stubbornly naive” about statistical approach but maybe that’s what you said in fewer words 😉 On the topic of quakes: “Somewhere” I’ve saved a link (that I can’t find now) to a paper that claimed to find quakes linked to displacement of the core vs surface due to external (i.e. Planetary / solar ) factors.

Sorry to just toss a “go fish”, and I’ll keep looking, but it may take a while. At any rate, the paper claimed that core vs crust displacement happened ‘as the solar system turned’ and that then caused more / less quakes. I could maybe see it if the core were one density, and the mantle / crust much different. Then as the center of gravity of the Earth / Moon / Sun (whatever else) system moved relative to the geographic center, there would be buoyancy forces working to displace things. Then causing crustal forces and quakes. Think of it as mantle tides maybe 😉 •.

The comment I added to the WUWT thread: E.M.Smith February 2, 2015 at 10:32 am Just my usual carp about things this approach ignores. 1) Milankovich is about there being more days of summer and not just how intense the sun is on those days. You can’t just look at June and get anything that matches the actual Milankovich theory. (For example: North Pole is warmed more, and longer, when it points at the sun while furthest from the sun, since the orbital velocity is lower then; thus more days of summer and more melt, not less, despite lower insolation when further away by a small amount.) 2) Many (most?) planetary / lunar / solar cycles are not single mode.

Sunspots tend to avoid the average, clustering on each side. Bond Events are an average of 1470 years, but have nodes each side (that seem to match to a 1500 year average lunar tidal cycle that is really bimodal at 1200 and 1800 years). Statistics that look for a match to ONE cycle frequency will fail on bimodal reality.

So, to me, it looks like you are inspecting non-Milancovitch theory (just more sun intensity) with unsuited tools (one fixed cycle) and then claiming Milancovitch must be wrong in consequence •. Resonance can be a strange beast.

Maybe it changes re tectonics as sunspot levels vary? ‘On 5 July 2011, a 39-story shopping mall called the “Techno-Mart” in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, shook violently for 10 minutes and was evacuated for two days.

After study, it was determined that about 20 people performing Tae Bo exercises to “The Power” caused the building to vibrate by creating a mechanical resonance. The tentative conclusion was the consensus among the six professors from an architectural institute and vibration measurement experts who participated in a recreation of the event.’ Report of the repeat: “It just happens to be that the vibration cycle caused by Tae Bo collided with the vertical vibration cycle unique to the building” – Prof. Another one, from Australia: ‘Tests confirmed exercise classes were causing the building to shake. While all buildings are designed to move in response to factors such as wind, the high impact movements of Zumba caused a build-up of “harmonic vibrations”, despite the floor on which the exercise class was held exceeding Australian standards for gymnasiums, officials said.’ •.

“captain dallas” got the memo (on equatorial insolation extremes (not means) & poleward flux): note the epic blunder on the wuwt “icebox” threads: graphing only equatorial June insolation — it’s not naivety — it’s malicious, hateful, deliberate, motivated deception — what schoolchild thinks MAXIMUM equatorial insolation or MINIMUM equatorial insolation occurs in June??? (wtf?????) It’s straight-up deliberate, hateful, motivated deception of totally dumb, compliant audience who did not even call such a SEVERE error. Let’s get real about the mullerous deception. Rog, here is my explanation.

I have two short post to follow and one note Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts. PART ONE HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses.

I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose. From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. One of the points I am trying to bring out in my piece of how the climate may changes is the following: The problem with so many in climate science is that the scientist in this field try to prove their points as to what may or may not effect the climate with specific items, as if they are in ISOLATION, rather then in the context of the entire climatic picture. Again a given force and magnitude changes of that force which may impact the climate has to be taken into consideration with the entire spectrum of items that are exerting an influence on the climate at that given time,along with the state of the climate at that given time in order to get a sense of what impact that specific force may or may not exert on the climate. This is why it is so hard to prove and show a simple cause and effect relationship between the climate and items exerting a force upon the climate even though it does exist.

One last point to follow. The climate most likely acts as a two tier system in that it has slow moving cycles such as Milankovitch Cycles that gradually move the climate toward a warmer or colder climate but super imposed on this gradual cycle are forces, and events that can create counter abrupt climatic trends especially when the climate is near the glacial/inter- glacial threshold condition which the slow moving cycles in the climatic system bring the climate toward and away from over long periods of time. They do not get it. They try constantly to isolate an item that may influence the climate without considering it in the context of the entire spectrum of items that may be impacting the climate at that given time or the state of the climate at that given time and think they can somehow come up with an explanation as to why the climate changes.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Rog, this is where I am with the climate and why/how it may change. “the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’” This common, serious misinterpretation / misrepresentation / misunderstanding is based on at least 2 false assumptions: 1. Insolation = absorption (as if white does not reflect) 2.

Northern land-ocean distribution = southern land-ocean distribution (as if island surrounded by water = pond surrounded by land) definitions semantics When DIFFERENT people say “Milankovitch theory”, they mean DIFFERENT things. Many are referring to something abstract (e.g. A UNIFORM globe) which does not exist in reality.

That’s how they end up thinking synchronicity across hemispheres disproves THEIR CONCEPTION of “Milankovitch theory” (which (let me be completely honest here please) appears politically motivated from my perspective). Observations observations (never mind theory based on politically motivated false assumptions, I suggest) The globe is NOT uniform.

White DOES reflect insolation ( INCLUDING HIGH insolation). Land-ocean geometry DOES play a PIVOTAL role in climate: Image Credit: Bill Illis “ice sheets will be included in future simulations” (!!!) •. Sometimes we need to be more specific than “Milankovitch cycles” when discussing symmetry, asymmetry, & interhemispheric synchronicity. For example dry/wet monsoons alternate north/south with eccentric precession: If you look up the largely speechless wuwt thread on this, you’ll find a highly informative absence of these telling illustrations.

(Unwavering luke loyalty to the nobly spun collective grand delusion of abstract alarmist art is emotionally inspired to dizzying heights just another easy victim of consensual feel-good contagion.) •. Note this particular chart is from the Antarctica Ice Core, but is representative of charts of temperatures taken from other Ice Cores.

What stands out is for the last 5000 years or even a bit more, is the fact that the global temperature of the earth has been in a slow gradual downtrend with intervals of warmth. The data indicating the items that drive the climate cycle gradually, those being Land /Ocean Arrangements,The Mean State of the Climate, Initial State of the Climate, Milankovitch Cycles, to name a few are taking the climate in a slow gradual downward trend. They are however being superimposed most likely by solar variability fluctuations which give the jig/saw pattern downward but with intervals of warmth.

Let me clarify what I mean by Mean State Of The Climate, and how I differentiate it from the Initial State of The Climate. What I am referring to by Mean State Of The Climate, is the temperature gradient between the equator and the polar regions. An Ice Age having a greater temperature gradient in contrast to Inter-glacial. The greater the gradient the more likely this indicator is pushing the earth into a colder mode. Initial State Of The Climate is simply what part of the globe is currently in glacial conditions versus non glacial conditions and how far from the threshold of Ice Age Conditions versus Inter- Glacial Conditions the average temperature of the globe is currently. I would say neutral.

From the data I have seen it looks like average global temperatures have been as high as 70F(21.0c approx.) to as low as 48F(9.0c approx.) Currently at about 15C. What strikes me at this current climate interval of time are the factors that are driving the climate into a gradual overall cooler trend are still in play, while now being in concert with two factors that will superimpose themselves on those factors driving the climate into a gradual cooler trend. Those two factors being a prolonged minimum solar period with the associated secondary and primary effects,and a weakening Earth Magnetic Field, which at the very least will enhance solar effects. Galactic Cosmic Ray Penetration coming to mind. This period also similar to the start of the Little Ice Age which followed the Medieval Warm Period. The only slight differences this time,in contrast to that time is the gradual cooler trend of the climate has advanced slightly more,and the Magnetic Field of the earth is weaker.

The big unknown however is how weak will solar become going forward and for what duration of time? If solar matches or exceeds Little Ice Age variability into a weaker state then the climate going forward should exceed conditions attained in the Little Ice Age, to some degree eventually all other things being equal. By all other things being equal I mean volcanic activity similar to the Little Ice Age period of time, no random impact,or perhaps some other unknown factor that could be out there. An example,galactic cosmic ray concentrations in the vicinity of the earth which I have no idea what they are, and what they were back then in contrast to today. With the climate there is always going to be the unknown x factors which make it extremely hard to get it right, but this is my best take on things. I think it’s helpful to always mention ICE ELEVATIONS along with land elevations.

Reading online climate discussions it’s pretty clear that there aren’t many contributors experienced with crossing the ever-moving rain/snow line on the side of a mountain. 1000 meters elevation gain is usually something like minus 6 degrees celsius in local winter. There can be 4 or 5 meters of snow up high and 0 meters at sea level (where rain totals can be massive). The ice sheets may depress the land over time, but it’s the net elevation that gives the cooling orographic lift that sucks monstrous quantities of snow out of the sky. Orographic precipitation — over high land AND OVER HIGH ICE. I’ll gather some links to share sometime when we have a dedicated discussion of 100ka (which can be unified with multidecadal sun-climate relations as/when/ if time permits). I didn’t see this post until recently so my comment is a bit late, but hopefully not too late.

Scafetta and Mazzarella are using the magintude squared coherence (MSC) estimator to show these relationships. Incidentally, it was I who introduced this tool to Scafetta, see This estimator can have very large bias upwards, regardless of method used for estimation, and thus easily indicate coherence when there is none. Therefore, since there are no confidence intervals in Fig. 6, the value of this plot is very small indeed.

See my ciriticism of his other use of the MSC for a discussion of this point. I show there that even MSC values as high as 0.95 may indicate insignificant coherence, see Fig.