My first idea about circuits with bifilars is that there is a displacement current in the dielectric between the two wires.
A displacement current creates a magnetic field, and a displacement current inside a dielectric encounters virtually no resistance, contrarily to a current in a wire.
The second point is that a displacement current is a shift of the electronic cloud which was centered around the atom nucleus, and so from an electric viewpoint, it consists in rotation of dipoles. These displacements are much more rapid than free electrons in a metal lattice and so could lead to new magnetic phenomena.
From an exprimental point of view, it's difficult to get a magnetic field from displacements currents only, because we need wires, and conductors between the dielectric. Both are also perhaps needed in order a new phenomenon to occur. Their relative topology may be an important point, as well as possible iron wires instead of copper and so on... I'm thinking to methods to improve the creation of magnetic fields from displacement currents and to enhance the distinguishability with magnetic fields from ordinary currents but I'm not successful.
I propose as track to explore and possible elementary phenomenon at the origin of a TPU, the magnetic field from displacement currents.
QuoteA displacement current creates a magnetic field, and a displacement current inside a dielectric encounters virtually no resistance, contrarily to a current in a wire.
I wonder if that is why Tesla designed his flat pancake bifilar coil.
So Ex are you seeing a free energy device >:-)
It is good to see someone thinking about displacement current.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.13, 10:00:41
My first idea about circuits with bifilars is that there is a displacement current in the dielectric between the two wires.
A displacement current creates a magnetic field, and a displacement current inside a dielectric encounters virtually no resistance, contrarily to a current in a wire.
The second point is that a displacement current is a shift of the electronic cloud which was centered around the atom nucleus, and so from an electric viewpoint, it consists in rotation of dipoles. These displacements are much more rapid than free electrons in a metal lattice and so could lead to new magnetic phenomena.
From an exprimental point of view, it's difficult to get a magnetic field from displacements currents only, because we need wires, and conductors between the dielectric. Both are also perhaps needed in order a new phenomenon to occur. Their relative topology may be an important point, as well as possible iron wires instead of copper and so on... I'm thinking to methods to improve the creation of magnetic fields from displacement currents and to enhance the distinguishability with magnetic fields from ordinary currents but I'm not successful.
I propose as track to explore and possible elementary phenomenon at the origin of a TPU, the magnetic field from displacement currents.
We will be looking forward to your work and thoughts on this with great interest.
The points in bold are especially interesting.
Hi Ex,
Interesting idea!
Maybe you have thought of it, nevertheless I would mention using copper foils to enhance facing areas in the bifiilars, this way displacement currents could also be explored more easily by sandwiching other metal (maybe also copper) foils between the bifiilar copper surfaces. Such copper foils exist with self adhesive coating at one side and you may use kitchen foil or other (poli) foil as an insulator between the metal foils to separate them when you wrap them up.
Some copper foil tape on ebay : http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=copper+foil+tape (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=copper+foil+tape)
rgds, Gyula
@all
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
I'm not yet at the stage for experimenting. I'm first trying to have a mental image of currents and electric and magnetic fields of a bifilar coil. Not simple.
In a bifilar coil, we have an electric field between the two wires, corresponding to half the voltage at the coil input.
The input current I is used to:
- build the main magnetic field B inside the coil. This is the classical field that loops outside from one end of the coil to the other one.
- build the electric field E between the two wires which is accompanied by a displacement current (= charging the capacitor)
- build the magnetic field B' that encircles this transverse displacement current and so is perpendicular to B, but having a complex topology because the displacement current is wrapped with the coil and so should be also B'. Moreover B' is of opposite direction at the interface between wire 1 and 2 than between wire 2 and 1.
There are also questions of relative phases.
The fact to have iron wires, as it is question in the thread about ION's Bifilar Circuit, should have an important effect on B'. I will try to draw a view soon.
I have built a simple air core transformer using 31 turns of iron wire alongside 31 turns of copper wire, wound in bifilar fashion (two wires wound at once) on the 95mm L x 128mm dia. form.
Iron: Inductance : 106.2 uH DC resistance 2.77 Ohms Dia 1mm with Teflon insulation:1.5mm
copper: Inductance: 97.05 uH DC resistance: 0.64 Ohms Dia 1mm with Teflon insulation: 1.42mm
Capacitance between windings:0.816 nF
I say air core because outside of the iron wire winding, there are no other ferrous metals used.
I will be measuring the coupling efficiency at various frequencies and with either winding driven.
The first test, running 0 to 5 amperes AC @ 60 Hz through the iron wire yields a very nasty waveform on the copper wire, which was loaded with a 5.6 ohm resistor. The waveform is very spikey with lots of unusual bumps. No resemblance to the clean sine wave input except for frequency. Extremely distorted.
I will post some pics later. More testing to be done.
@ION
Interesting setup. The idea to use 2 wires of different metals, one being ferromagnetic and not the other, should be a great help to analyse the problem. If you don't get the same result when the current is through the iron wire than the copper wire, then it's probably an effect of the current inside the iron that makes the difference. If you get the same result, it is likely an artefact, the capacitive coupling acting as a high pass filter that amplifies frequencies higher than 60 Hz which are always present in the not very pure signal from the mains, giving the "spikey" waveform.
It should be also interesting to wind the two wires as a single one, while spacing each turn from the previous, in order to have an imbalance of the electric field between wire 1 and 2 (tighly side by side) and between wire 2 and 1 (more spaced). The displacement current would be more important in one direction than the opposite. Possible canceling effects would thus be removed at the price of dividing by near two the capacity between the two wires.
QuoteIt should be also interesting to wind the two wires as a single one, while spacing each turn from the previous, in order to have an imbalance of the electric field between wire 1 and 2 (tighly side by side) and between wire 2 and 1 (more spaced).
This lends credence to the antenna wire wound vertically around the ring of the LTPU/SM17. It is pretty clear in the pictures.
I have rat shack spools of steel and stranded silver coated copper on semi circular iron wire core. This setup self resonated. I put in 43k and the scope shows 12Mhz across the scope. When I tried to get this setup again it would not resonate. I would be willing to set this back up if anybody wanted to mod it. The spools are wound randomly and not like machine wound. One of the builds I have has 3 vertical windings. Two of them are copper and one is vinyl lanyard for the spacing that was mentioned by ION.
Regarding post #6 bifilar transformer test:
I have tracked down the source of the very irregular waveform when driven off a 5 Amp variac directly. The distortions of the 60 Hz waveform are due to a heavily loaded variac are amplified and exaggerated by the iron in the coil.
When I repeat the test using a 200 watt solid state audio amplifier driven by a clean sine wave oscillator, normal transformer action is observed, the output waveform closely resembles the input waveform.
I have tested in both directions driving either the copper or the iron winding, and it behaves pretty much the same, with a normal roll off of output at lower frequencies as would be expected from the small amount of iron in this transformer.
I will continue testing to see if anything unusual can be discovered.
I propose this idea of distinguishing activity between the magnetic or electric field.
Suppose we have a capacitor. If we apply constant current either charging or discharging the cap, then there is no induction due to the changing current. We can then detect any activity coming from the dielectric.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.16, 18:58:53
I propose this idea of distinguishing activity between the magnetic or electric field.
Suppose we have a capacitor. If we apply constant current either charging or discharging the cap, then there is no induction due to the changing current. We can then detect any activity coming from the dielectric.
If you apply a constant current the capacitor will charge eventually to a high voltage where corona effects and leakage become severe and cause heating or breakdown.
Better to set some threshold and switch to discharge at some predetermined voltage. Set another lower limit to switch back to charge mode. You will generate a linear triangle voltage wave.
This is typically how triangle wave generators are made, usually by putting the capacitor in the feedback loop of an op-amp (integrator configuration) and use a comparator to switch voltage on the non-inverting input.
What kind of dielectric activity do you hope to see with constant current charge/discharge?
@Ion
QuoteI have tested in both directions driving either the copper or the iron winding, and it behaves pretty much the same, with a normal roll off of output at lower frequencies as would be expected from the small amount of iron in this transformer.
I mean no offense but I had to laugh when I read this because I did exactly the same thing a long time ago and in the end the only conclusion I could come to was that I knew better. Intuitively I knew better before I even started however there was always a slight glimmer of hope that I could be wrong so I did it anyway. I also followed the blocking oscillator/Joule Thief path and spent a great deal of time building and testing and came to the same conclusion. Intuitively we know there is nothing there because we are not really doing anything out of the ordinary yet we just keep doing the same things over and over and over and expecting different results.
As well after years of building, testing and research it became apparent that every credible person who demonstrated devices which seemed to work as claimed 1)stated their device was "simple" ... simple and 2) took their technology to their grave because they could not sell it because it was so damn simple that anybody could reproduce the same effects. Doesn't that just piss a guy off?, lol, that so many people stated the technology was so simple from their perspective yet damn near impossible from ours. I think somewhere along the line we dropped the ball and we made things so complex that nothing makes any sense anymore. Then we started groping about in the dark out of desparation doing things we know cannot work because the last 100 years of research states it cannot work as we are doing it.
My latest great insight is in the fact that realistically we only need to do one thing .... one thing, we need to produce a force on one free electron and move it with less input energy than is normally required. All these fancy BS theories and equations and engineering degrees don't amount to anything if a person cannot move one free electron with a little less input energy than is normally required. That is the answer to the great question ... that and the number 42.
AC
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.16, 18:58:53
I propose this idea of distinguishing activity between the magnetic or electric field.
Suppose we have a capacitor. If we apply constant current either charging or discharging the cap, then there is no induction due to the changing current. We can then detect any activity coming from the dielectric.
The direction of the polarization inside the dielectric would be constant, the electric dipoles would not rotate, we would just have a constant magnetic field so I fear that we won't observe anything, providing that the dielectric is linear.
Nevertheless if we detected some induction signal, there is a little chance that this experiment proves clearly anomalies. It could be done by injecting a triangular current signal of low frequency into the capacitor and by monitoring the possible induction with a coil transverse to the current in the dielectric, during the stable time periods between peaks, when the current is constant.
If anomalies existed in ordinary capacitors, they should have been noted for a long time. I think that this experiment could be interesting with the capacitor effect of a bifilar coil, due to the wrapped topology of the magnetic field from the displacement current. Maybe magnetic field lines disconnection/reconnection could happen.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.17, 04:06:04
...every credible person who demonstrated devices which seemed to work as claimed 1)stated their device was "simple" ... simple and 2) took their technology to their grave because they could not sell it because it was so damn simple that anybody could reproduce the same effects.
I see the things otherwise. Points 1 and 2 are incompatible with the credibility of the person. Something that "seems to work" is not a fact. The credibility arises from the facts but we have not one supporting the claims of this person.
Quote
My latest great insight is in the fact that realistically we only need to do one thing .... one thing, we need to produce a force on one free electron and move it with less input energy than is normally required.
...
I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.17, 08:27:54
I see the things otherwise. Points 1 and 2 are incompatible with the credibility of the person. Something that "seems to work" is not a fact. The credibility arises from the facts but we have not one supporting the claims of this person.
I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?
What is the fact anyway ? Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid ? isn't that a fact ?
@allcanadian
Why 42 ? why not 369 ?
Quote from: ION on 2012.10.17, 03:35:02
If you apply a constant current the capacitor will charge eventually to a high voltage where corona effects and leakage become severe and cause heating or breakdown.
Better to set some threshold and switch to discharge at some predetermined voltage. Set another lower limit to switch back to charge mode. You will generate a linear triangle voltage wave.
This is typically how triangle wave generators are made, usually by putting the capacitor in the feedback loop of an op-amp (integrator configuration) and use a comparator to switch voltage on the non-inverting input.
What kind of dielectric activity do you hope to see with constant current charge/discharge?
Yes, triangle wave would be great for this, but I'm afraid I can't go that far due to limitation.
What we're detecting is induction due to the changing electric field. In my view:
E= dI/dt
I = dE/dt
If this is true, then induction also occur when the voltage change is the greatest. This is different (90 degrees out of phase) of magnetic induction. It would explains free energy in general because this type of induction would not load the source. Long before I saw leads attracting to capacitor when I discharge it, but it's difficult to sort out electric and magnetic.
@Exn
QuoteI see the things otherwise. Points 1 and 2 are incompatible with the credibility of the person. Something that "seems to work" is not a fact. The credibility arises from the facts but we have not one supporting the claims of this person.
I believe you have it right and wrong, the scenario is always the same .... Let's say I am an inventor and I demonstate that my simple free energy device works beyond all shadow of doubt. Then you ask me what my secret is and I tell you that you cannot afford the price. You ask me what is the price then? and my response is .... Everything.
How can a person have credibility when their love of money and power completely overwhelms their love for their fellow man?, I submit that right or wrong they can have none.
QuoteI agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?
No, all I need to do is move one free electron with a little less input energy than is normally required and I will be happy and so will you when I tell everyone how I did it.
allcanadian
I will reformulate you statement : all we need is to understand why there is difference between electron current running in vacuum and current running inside a wire . I think Steven Mark would also agree with that....
This raises the obvious question that all of the tpu's might have been running in vacume ?
cutting them with a loud saw ...no shhhhhh heard
The mind boggles with possibilities . This is just another one for discussion that fits with everyhting.
Quote from: forest on 2012.10.17, 08:37:50
What is the fact anyway ? Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid ? isn't that a fact ?
...
Not a fact but a rumor, an urban legend.
To be a fact it needs to be duplicated by third parties, and widely duplicated considering the weirdness of the alleged affirmation.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.17, 13:05:02
...Let's say I am an inventor and I demonstate that my simple free energy device works beyond all shadow of doubt. Then you ask me what my secret is and I tell you that you cannot afford the price.
...
There is not one fact that the device works, not one fact the inventor has a real secret. Your supposition that the inventor try to protect his pecuniary interests being supported by none fact, is to be considered as an invention until proof of the contrary. And so, from an operational viewpoint, the argument is not relevant because it's purely imaginary.
Quote
Quote
I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?
No, all I need to do is move one free electron with a little less input energy than is normally required...
That's exactly what I meant, said in another way.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.17, 08:27:54
I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?
There may be a way to "borrow" momentum, transfer it to our electrons and move them, then give the momentum back. Repeated over and over, we induce current.
(I use the correlation of throwing a magic ball, hitting an object causing it to move, and then the ball disappears and magically reappears in your hand to throw it again.)
This involves "perturbation theory" - which I know very little about.
@Exn
QuoteThere is not one fact that the device works, not one fact the inventor has a real secret. Your supposition that the inventor try to protect his pecuniary interests being supported by none fact, is to be considered as an invention until proof of the contrary. And so, from an operational viewpoint, the argument is not relevant because it's purely imaginary.
That is your personal opinion and nothing more which I happen to disagree with on various levels from experience.
1)There is not one fact that the device works
Wrong, you have no facts concerning whether it works
2)not one fact the inventor has a real secret
Wrong, that is unless you know every inventor personally and they told you their secret but that is absurd
3)Your supposition that the inventor try to protect his pecuniary interests being supported by none fact
Wrong, almost every inventor I have ever known or heard of has taken great measures to protect their interests, that is human nature
4)is to be considered as an invention until proof of the contrary
And whom has to prove what to whom? you see the problem is that you deny anything which has not been proven to you personally thus your weird little reality depends on the number of people who must prove something to you personally ... unfortunately I have nothing to prove to you in any way and neither does pretty much anyone else.
5)And so, from an operational viewpoint, the argument is not relevant because it's purely imaginary.
So you have proof it is imaginary then?, Oh sorry that's right you believe that anything not proven to you personally must be imaginary ... my mistake.
There is also a possibility to validate device by independent scientific laboratory without uncovering the principle of operation of device. However I never heard about anybody convinced by such testing procedure.... :P Look for example at TPU case. C.C
From AC:
QuoteThat is your personal opinion and nothing more which I happen to disagree with on various levels from experience.
Only problem with this statement is that you seem very unwilling to share your "supposed" actual "experience" that you allude to with any real and tangible working circuit, diagram or other
valuable information that will promote the goals of this forum.
Rhetoric you have in abundance, and you seem to get your kicks challenging the reasonable viewpoints of some, with nothing real to back up your claims, no circuits, nothing tangible to share. Just a highly exalted point of view.
What are you doing here, anyway? Do you just just enjoy being the "contrarian"? This seems to be the MO of most all of your posts.
I do like and agree with some of the stuff you post (not the condescending stuff), but it is never new nor, is it inspiring, mostly just preaching to the choir.
This is also
my personal opinion.
P.S. You might want to parse your longwinded posts into cohesive paragraphs to make them easier to read.
@Exn
Let's go a little deeper into the rabbit hole.....
It is well known in psychology that crazy people do not know they are crazy and they consider what they do as normal however we do not and this is the primary reason we judge them as "crazy". Now if I put you in a room full of crazy people then logically speaking you should be the only person in the room who knows all of them are crazy as they should be oblivious to this fact. If I put you in a world full of crazy people then logically speaking you should be the only one who knows they are crazy as again they should be oblivious to this fact.
Now we have a problem, do you see it?, well if a crazy person does not know they are crazy then logically either you or all the other people are crazy and neither you nor them can ever know it. You see crazy is not a popularity contest and it is not a numbers game whereby if more people agree with you then you win. This is not the way it works, being crazy is defined by a complete lack of perspective whereby the person must reject every other perspective and only consider their own as the right one. Does this sound familiar Exn?, it should because there are large groups, most all groups, in our society who do seem crazy from our perspective but that does not mean they are as it is always a matter of perspective.
I find this fascinating as one can never know and it may be that our world is truly crazy if we consider the fact that we are destroying the very planet we rely so heavily on to survive. Most all water is heavily polluted, 90% of all fish stocks obliterated, massive deforestation, overpopulation etc..., as you say we need proof and I believe we have it. Fundamentally it should be understood that we are doing something wrong, that we are thinking the wrong way and approaching science and the problems we face the wrong way. Even a crazy person should understand this however unfortunately I do not think this is the case.
AC
@Ion
QuoteOnly problem with this statement is that you seem very unwilling to share your "supposed" actual "experience" that you allude to with any real and tangible working circuit, diagram or other valuable information that will promote the goals of this forum.
Rhetoric you have in abundance, and you seem to get your kicks challenging the reasonable viewpoints of some, with nothing real to back up your claims, no circuits, nothing tangible to share. Just a highly exalted point of view.
Lol, you know I agree with you 100% and I am well aware of what I do and how I do it and many times I don't like what I do anymore than you may. However if not me then who?, who will try to offer the other perspective with little bias towards the concept of right or wrong. I may sound judgmental at times however I am not any more certain of anything than anyone else here.
You pretty much nailed it and I would have to agree 100% but I guess the obvious question would be so what?, what if I am?.
AC
Here is the problem. Assuming that I have Ou device how can I prove this ? Sure way is to allow replication and standardization so it may be mass produced but this is exactly what everybody doesn't want to do due to various reasons, mostly because of existence of upset economy.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.17, 08:27:54
I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?
There may be a way to "borrow" momentum, transfer it to our electrons and move them, then give the momentum back. Repeated over and over, we induce current.
(I use the correlation of throwing a magic ball, hitting an object causing it to move, and then the ball disappears and magically reappears in your hand to throw it again.)
This involves "perturbation theory" - which I know very little about.
From AC:
QuoteYou pretty much nailed it and I would have to agree 100% but I guess the obvious question would be so what?, what if I am?.
I have no problem with your sometimes very accurate and thoughtful editorial comments. They are suitable for the RANT thread.
In this thread we need tangible experiments and proofs of hypothesis. If you can share some of your experimental experience in this thread I'm sure we would all be grateful. I'm sure you have plenty to teach and share.
I would very much like to see some of the experiments you mentioned in the past, but they were never forthcoming. You often leave us hanging.
Join the team working towards the goal, your input will be much appreciated.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.18, 15:08:22
@Exn
That is your personal opinion and nothing more which I happen to disagree with on various levels from experience.
1)There is not one fact that the device works
Wrong, you have no facts concerning whether it works
A fact is not relative to me.
A fact becomes a fact when it can be observed (or has been widely observed), leading to a wide consensus among the people about its reality.
The allegation from Forest: "Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid" is not a fact.
Quote
2)not one fact the inventor has a real secret
Wrong, that is unless you know every inventor personally and they told you their secret but that is absurd
...
Fallacy ("Argumentum ad ignorantiam"), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance.
While searching for materials of high permittivity, in order to create and keep displacement currents inside a dielectric, I found that ferrites, which are known for having a high permeability, have also a rather high relative permittivity (from 10 to some tens). This is interesting because we can use the same material to create both the capacitor and the magnetic circuit for detecting the B field from the displacement currents. I don't know yet how.
Quote from: forest on 2012.10.18, 15:16:16
There is also a possibility to validate device by independent scientific laboratory without uncovering the principle of operation of device. However I never heard about anybody convinced by such testing procedure.... :P Look for example at TPU case. C.C
This procedure is not the best, but it would be very instructive. A black box with an input and an output, showing more energy out than in and providing much more energy than any conventional means of same volume as the box, would be a positive argument in favor of the device. As well, an isolated black box suspended to a wire and deviating from the vertical, would be a strong argument of a non-newtonian thrust. And so on. Unfortunatley there are generally not such tests. The vast majority of "inventors" know that their device don't pass such scientific tests. At my knowledge, only Black Light Power has a third party positive test, and Rossi is said to have one soon.
@Exn
QuoteA fact is not relative to me.
A fact becomes a fact when it can be observed (or has been widely observed), leading to a wide consensus among the people about its reality.
The allegation from Forest: "Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid" is not a fact.
If you exist then it is relative to you, if you believe it to be true it is relative to you regardless of whether you believe there is a connection or not. Have you ever noticed how people always tend to distance themselves from something to make it more believable to others?, as if to say I believe it is true but my believing has nothing to do with it, LOL. As well we should be perfectly clear that just because something is not observed or measured or believed by anyone does not mean it does not exist nor does it mean it is not true and this is the reason we are always discovering new things and discovering some old beliefs were incorrect.
I'm going to edit this post and add something more relevant which may apply. I have found the facts can be debatable and a good example may be a bifiliar coil I believe you were considering at the start of this thread. Now take a bifiliar coil and straighten it out so that we now have two parallel conductors and the conductors are shorted at the end of one conductor to the start of the other. This could be seen as a capacitor, two plates shorted on ends opposite to the connections of the external source current. The problem I saw many years ago when testing this coil was that the facts concerning it were fairly polarized. Some said it was only a coil while others said no it is both a coil and a capacitor and maybe any variation inbetween. However after many experiments it became apparent that it can be either or not and that the line between them becomes so blurred one cannot tell the difference.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.19, 16:48:07
...
Now take a bifiliar coil and straighten it out so that we now have two parallel conductors and the conductors are shorted at the end of one conductor to the start of the other. This could be seen as a capacitor, two plates shorted on ends opposite to the connections of the external source current. The problem I saw many years ago when testing this coil was that the facts concerning it were fairly polarized. Some said it was only a coil while others said no it is both a coil and a capacitor and maybe any variation inbetween. However after many experiments it became apparent that it can be either or not and that the line between them becomes so blurred one cannot tell the difference.
AC
Those who said it was only a coil as well as those who said it is both a coil and a capacitor should study electronics instead of oversimplifying, at the price of the falseness, a circuit for it to fit their poor knowledge. There is a line along which a parallel capacity and a series inductance are distributed. When this double-wires line is wound as a coil, there are additionnal inductances and capacities, connected in a way different from the others. An equivalent schematic can be drawn. This is perfectly modelizable, just a question of competence and work.
@Exn
QuoteThose who said it was only a coil as well as those who said it is both a coil and a capacitor should study electronics instead of oversimplifying, at the price of the falseness, a circuit for it to fit their poor knowledge. There is a line along which a parallel capacity and a series inductance are distributed. When this double-wires line is wound as a coil, there are additionnal inductances and capacities, connected in a way different from the others. An equivalent schematic can be drawn. This is perfectly modelizable, just a question of competence and work.
Well if you had built and tested Tesla patent #512340 like myself you might understand what is possible a little better and if you would discard the faulty lumped sum element calculations I imagine you are overly preoccupied with then you might actually learn something. First I don't draw an equivalent schematic I build the damn thing then test it and it is my opinion that anyone who believes they can simply replace reality with a few calculations has issues they need to sort out. As well I know you would never ever do this but some people might simply model the coil by adding a parallel capacitance then assume it must be the same thing, I know you would never ever do this because that would be completely insane.
It may help to understand I do not use lumped sum calculations, never have, nor have I ever assumed anything is distributed uniformly anywhere because this is a crazy. Did I mention the 100 year old theory assuming contact electrification was uniform(which everyone believed) was recently proven to be completely false, hmm who would have thunk it. Well I thought this probably 20 years ago when studying electrodynamics and the very notion that everyone simply lumped everything together was absurd. You know people talk of science and observation and the precision of measurement and the clarity of thought and then .... well then they simply lump a bunch of oranges together and call it an apple.
To get back on track let's talk about a really simple concept, now if Tesla was using a quenched spark gap to fire his coil for electromagnets and the impulse produced VHF harmonics as I know it does then is it realistic to say that one of these VHF wavelengths might correspond to the wavelength of his conductors or a harmonic of it?. Well of course it is however we have a problem in that most people think Tesla was some eccentric from the backwoods who was simply blowing sparks across a gap to power some funny looking coils. They assumed he was just playin around and wasn't really as smart as us folks today because we have all these really cool textbooks and the internet stuff which makes us really smart. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble but this is not the case and if you understood half of what Nikola Tesla did in this field of technology then you should consider yourself fortunate.
If you produce HF harmonics then you can throw your lumped sum theories out the window because they do not apply which should have been obvious from the start. Look at tesla's therapeutic patents, what does he say?, well Tesla states the HF generated forms nodes corresponding to the wavelength of the frequency generated. These nodes can be cm apart, m apart or any distance apart and a person can make a load connection at these nodes which can be anywhere in the circuit. Now let's go way the hell out on a limb, wild ass speculation, and say maybe if we had a couple of wires in close proximity wound as a coil then maybe HF nodes could be formed which might suggest that maybe there was high potentials at these nodes which might at some point be directly across from one another which kind of forms an electric field or non-distributed capacitance at that exact point. Now in Tesla's therapuetic patents he was making load connections in close proximity to one another on what constitutes a shorted conductor, the therapeutic patent is the hairpin circuit. So let's take that haipin circuit and stretch the damn thing out then wind it like patent#512340, hmm I wonder what might happen?. We know what will happen as it could not be any more freaking obvious to anyone that does not simply lump every damn thing together.
I am sorry for my language but I cannot begin to explain how frustrated I get when people who consider themselves as experts cannot seem to grasp even the most basic concepts. No offense but this is the easy part which I find about as difficult as tying my shoes and it gets very very complicated from this point on. One the nodes move with a variation in frequency, two so must the non-distributed electric field perpendicular to the wire, three the self-inductance forms it's own nodes which also couple and interact, four none of what I have mentioned is static or uniformly distributed in any way, shape or form.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.20, 16:19:56
...
I am sorry for my language but I cannot begin to explain how frustrated I get when people who consider themselves as experts cannot seem to grasp even the most basic concepts.
...
I don't know about what people your are talking, and the rest of your speech, for example about VHF, seems to me a pure speculation, not even a hypothesis.
In spite the hundreds of circuits that I have built in the past, antennae, coils, capacitors... using frequencies from audio to UHF, I have never seen the least anomaly but many strange results, explainable after analysis. Tesla patent #512340 is perfectly clear and understandable. It's an efficient way to make a resonant LC circuit by optimizing the natural capacity of the winding. If you don't think so, show us an experiment that doesn't obey Maxwell's equations and explain which measurements differ from the expected values. I'm interested in facts and quantified observations, not in gibberish or pseudo-scientific tales.
@Exn
QuoteI don't know about what people your are talking, and the rest of your speech, for example about VHF, seems to me a pure speculation, not even a hypothesis.
In spite the hundreds of circuits that I have built in the past, antennae, coils, capacitors... using frequencies from audio to UHF, I have never seen the least anomaly but many strange results, explainable after analysis. Tesla patent #512340 is perfectly clear and understandable. It's an efficient way to make a resonant LC circuit by optimizing the natural capacity of the winding. If you don't think so, show us an experiment that doesn't obey Maxwell's equations and explain which measurements differ from the expected values. I'm interested in facts and quantified observations, not in gibberish or pseudo-scientific tales.
I guess that is the problem isn't it? as I have probably built thousands of circuits in my life many relating to HV/HF phenomena and I had never seen anything remotely close as you say until I built the circuits as the patents specify to exhibit these specific effects. As well you have confused the issue of the coil itself and the circuit which drives it and in this light I could just as well say the coil will do nothing if it's just sitting on my table doing nothing, you have simply stated the obvious nothing more. Have you read the patent?, what does Tesla state this coil can be used for?.
As well you make the false assumption that these effects do not agree with Maxwell's equations because you personally do not understand them, please do not insult the memory of Maxwell by thinking your lack of understanding must reflect on his great work. No rules have been broken in any way and as I said this should not be that difficult to understand as all of these effects are known in the art and they simply occur in a slightly different way.
To be honest this is really comical because I believe you have spoken of every single effect I have mentioned and you were in complete agreement with them however when I mention these effects can occur together you seem completely confused by them and imply your not understanding it must be a violation of Maxwells work.... Really?, wow.
How can I make this any more clear?, there is nothing out of the ordinary happening and this is really simple, no violations of anything, nothing happens that is not expected once you understand what is happening ---- read what I said again until you understand what I am saying, verify what I have said in the literature, then comment.
@ac
Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, it was not clear nor concise. I'm open to operational suggestions, not to old and useless stories and digressions around interpretations of Tesla's designs. So I invite you to continue the research about the magnetic field from displacement currents, which is the subject here. Tks.
@Exn
QuoteMaybe I misinterpreted what you said, it was not clear nor concise. I'm open to operational suggestions, not to old and useless stories and digressions around interpretations of Tesla's designs. So I invite you to continue the research about the magnetic field from displacement currents, which is the subject here. Tks.
To be honest I think were on the same page but use different methods, I have always used electron flow notation and infinite element analysis exclusively which makes me the odd man out. Some might say this is an inductance and I say no because I have subdivided it into 1,000 pieces it is inductance(s), some might say this is a capacitance and I say no because it assumes uniform distribution it is capacitance(s). So it depends on what degree one is willing to go to understand something, I like to go all the way.
Some people see things at the 50ms time division while I'm thinking it in the sub-nanosecond range ;).
I think it would save us some effort if we look back at what experiment already done. It came across my mine that the hair pin circuit may had some of what we looking for.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/images/lectures/1893-02-24/04-183.gif
(http://www.tfcbooks.com/images/lectures/1893-02-24/04-183.gif)
The first left picture is normal: more voltage closer to the terminals. The middle picture is also normal: more current pass through the top lamp makes it brighter. The third one is not normal: More current pass through the top but the lowest lamp get brighter. How come?
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.22, 14:36:33
...
The third one is not normal: More current pass through the top but the lowest lamp get brighter. How come?
The third one is normal if the line length is about a half-wave.
(http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02390.png)
("Maximum E"/"Zero E" is between the two lines, "Maximum I"/"Zero I" is along each line)
These are called Lecher lines and are well known in the art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecher_lines
Thank you ex, for clearly showing how they operate, there is no mystery here.
Lecher line could be an explanation. However, I tend to agree with Tesla that it's not frequency dependent. It's the rate of change (cap charge/discharge) that causing this effect.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1893-02-24.htm
"...These results, as I have pointed out previously, should not be considered to be due exactly to frequency but rather to the time rate of change which may be great, even with low frequencies. A great many other results of the same kind, equally interesting, especially to those who are only used to manipulate steady currents, may be obtained and they afford precious clues in investigating the nature of electric currents..."
@All
Woo that was a close one and I knew it was because I broke out in a cold sweat and my thighs started chafing which is ... well you know a sign. I started thinking about the hairpin circuit which is just like Tesla's therapeutic circuit and I wondered what might happen if we stretched the darn thing out and wound it like a coil for electromagnets. Could nodes of maximum and minimum potential occur perpendicular to one another to form a capacitor almost anywhere? and my mind was racing and wondering ... there was a great deal of wondering going on.
Thank god Exn stepped in and defined the phenomena because it is a well know fact that once something is defined let alone a term, I say a term, to define it then we can just ignore it because all is known. As well Ion confirmed this fact by saying there is no mystery here and that was a great relief and as if a great euphoric calm swept over me.
I'm really happy I don't have to think anymore, thinking is hard, and it is a well known fact that hard things are bad. Woot you guys saved the day and I am sure I will sleep like a baby knowing you are here and everything is as it should be.
From AC:
QuoteCould nodes of maximum and minimum potential occur perpendicular to one another to form a capacitor almost anywhere? and my mind was racing and wondering ... there was a great deal of wondering going on.
Maybe, but not almost everywhere.
Stay
tuned for more mystery.
Quote from: ION on 2012.10.23, 21:51:54
From AC:
QuoteCould nodes of maximum and minimum potential occur perpendicular to one another to form a capacitor almost anywhere? and my mind was racing and wondering ... there was a great deal of wondering going on
Maybe, but not almost everywhere.
Stay tuned for more mystery.
you need two conductors perpendicular to the min max nodes if intercepting a longitudinal electric wave
I think a high-K dielectric helps but I never had one available
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.23, 13:06:11
Lecher line could be an explanation. However, I tend to agree with Tesla that it's not frequency dependent.
...
The experiment proves that it's frequency dependent. When you multiply the frequency by 2, you must shorten the line length by 2 to obtain the same effect.
Why to deny the facts?
And since Newton modelized the fall of an apple and the motion of the planets with the same law, it is well understood that there is no need for a special theory about any particular phenomenon when it is explained by a more general theory.
Quote
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1893-02-24.htm
"...These results, as I have pointed out previously, should not be considered to be due exactly to frequency but rather to the time rate of change which may be great, even with low frequencies. A great many other results of the same kind, equally interesting, especially to those who are only used to manipulate steady currents, may be obtained and they afford precious clues in investigating the nature of electric currents..."
For a sine signal at any frequency, the time rate of change is the derivative of the sine, i.e. a cosine which is also a sine whith a different phase. And any signal is a sum of sine signals, each of them being independant of the others when propagating along a line because the medium is linear.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.24, 06:23:24
The experiment proves that it's frequency dependent. When you multiply the frequency by 2, you must shorten the line length by 2 to obtain the same effect.
Why to deny the facts?
And since Newton modelized the fall of an apple and the motion of the planets with the same law, it is well understood that there is no need for a special theory about any particular phenomenon when it is explained by a more general theory.
For a sine signal at any frequency, the time rate of change is the derivative of the sine, i.e. a cosine which is also a sine whith a different phase. And any signal is a sum of sine signals, each of them being independant of the others when propagating along a line because the medium is linear.
You may be right. I'm just looking at this vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDWF50fUoYY
When he adjust the light near top position, it dimmed. Looks like he has reach two same node? Then he slide the light down lengths greater. I do not see the bulb dim again. The more he slide down the brighter it gets.
For sine and cosine, my point is deriving energy from the sine is one thing. Deriving energy from its rate of change, the cosine, could be another thing?
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.23, 19:36:38
...
I wondered what might happen if we stretched the darn thing out and wound it like a coil for electromagnets.
Many people believe that a line wound like a coil, would remain the same line, with the same phenomena of propagation. This is (almost) true only for coaxial lines due to the shield. But when you are using a bifilar line, each wire of each turn is capacitively coupled to the others. High frequency currents can pass through the coil as a block, and mix with those following the line. Consequently there will be also some imbalance of currents between the two parallel wires, and therefore inductive coupling between turns. And so we are left with surprising results due to our ignorance of the exact electrical parameters of the setup.
Many unskilled people will play with their coils, imagining fuzzy utopian theories to fill the holes of their ignorance facing a complex setup, instead of seriously studying and measuring. It's always more gratifying to think to be the possible great discoverer of new phenomena that the giants of physics or the electrical engineers would have not seen since Ampère, rather than to accept to be an ignorant who has to study what some others already know.
Quote
...
Thank god Exn stepped in and defined the phenomena because it is a well know fact that once something is defined let alone a term, I say a term, to define it then we can just ignore it because all is known. As well Ion confirmed this fact by saying there is no mystery here and that was a great relief and as if a great euphoric calm swept over me.
...
No mystery. It's like "The Hound of the Baskervilles" from Conan Doyle when you know the solution. The mystery has disappeared.
A mystery comes always from our ignorance. The greater the ignorance, the greater the mysteries. The mysteries give fun. That's probably why so many people pamper their ignorance. ;D
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.24, 13:16:31
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDWF50fUoYY
When he adjust the light near top position, it dimmed. Looks like he has reach two same node? Then he slide the light down lengths greater. I do not see the bulb dim again. The more he slide down the brighter it gets.
His line is a quarter-wave line. A quarter wave line must be powered from a high voltage source while a half-wave line must be powered from a lower voltage but a stronger current, question of line impedance at the powered end.
You can correctly observe the nodes and anti-node if the lamp probe doesn't disturb the circuit. This implies that the lamp presents a negligible load to the circuit. It seems not to be the case here and so, there is also a question of impedance matching that may offset the maximum brightness/dim from the nodes.
When the guy connects a tube lamp to only one conductor of the line, power is drawn from one conductor to ground through the "capacity" effect of the operator. So we have a new circuit, this functioning is irrelevant relative to the line characteristics only.
This experiment is rather according to what is expected for a quarter-wave line, but it is not significant because too much crude, without measurements. We see one of the ignorants that I spoke of above, having fun with things that he doesn't understand.
Quote
For sine and cosine, my point is deriving energy from the sine is one thing. Deriving energy from its rate of change, the cosine, could be another thing?
What energy are you talking about? There is energy in fields, there is energy in a load... Energy derives from the field amplitude, the voltage, the current...
If there is no load and there is a stationary wave along the line, energy has been used only to build the fields and then no energy is needed expect for compensating the losses.
I don't see anything special about a hairpin circuit. The bars have nodes on them http://gbhsweb.glenbrook225.org/gbs/science/phys/class/waves/u10l4c.html
There is a difference of potential between a node and an anti-node or the opposing anti-nodes, with a hairpin circuit a node is in a position on one bar opposite to another node on the other bar, the anti-nodes are opposite and opposing so there is a greater (average) potential difference between two anti-nodes directly opposite from each other on the two bars than there is between an anti-node and a node, when a load is connected between any difference in potential current flows. Between two nodes is no potential difference. All normal stuff. The standing waves can be achieved weather the two bars are joined at the top or not I think.
Cheers
I can fully understand AC having a spasm a while back (post #45) when ex and I talked about the hairpin circuit, and I remarked "no mystery here".
This is true at one level of understanding, at another level, it's all a mystery, even our existence. As Bibhas De has remarked "the foundation (of physics) is the frontier".
There are things that we absolutely do not know at this time. On top of that there is a body of measurement and experimentation that within said framework constitutes "knowns".
When I said "no mystery here" I was speaking from within that framework and body of knowledge. At another level it is all a great mystery, and a miracle of sorts.
ex makes many accurate statements when speaking from within the framework and body of knowledge we have regarding electromagnetics. He patiently and clearly explains "knowns". I applaud that.
Perhaps AC will someday grace us with his great discoveries rather than sarcasm as in post prior. We can only wish.
As Sgt. Friday would say "Just the facts ma'am".
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.25, 09:00:44
His line is a quarter-wave line. A quarter wave line must be powered from a high voltage source while a half-wave line must be powered from a lower voltage but a stronger current, question of line impedance at the powered end.
You can correctly observe the nodes and anti-node if the lamp probe doesn't disturb the circuit. This implies that the lamp presents a negligible load to the circuit. It seems not to be the case here and so, there is also a question of impedance matching that may offset the maximum brightness/dim from the nodes.
When the guy connects a tube lamp to only one conductor of the line, power is drawn from one conductor to ground through the "capacity" effect of the operator. So we have a new circuit, this functioning is irrelevant relative to the line characteristics only.
This experiment is rather according to what is expected for a quarter-wave line, but it is not significant because too much crude, without measurements. We see one of the ignorants that I spoke of above, having fun with things that he doesn't understand.
What energy are you talking about? There is energy in fields, there is energy in a load... Energy derives from the field amplitude, the voltage, the current...
If there is no load and there is a stationary wave along the line, energy has been used only to build the fields and then no energy is needed expect for compensating the losses.
Exn, so let's say his set up is quarter wave. The quarter wave in the middle picture below cause the light to dim and the quarter wave on the right cause the light to be bright?
(http://www.tfcbooks.com/images/lectures/1893-02-24/04-183.gif)
I guess I vision two energy. One is flowing inside the wire and one flow outside. Energy outside is the field but can be represent by the Electric and magnetic field flowing in the wire. Pretty much Voltage x Current. If they are 90 degrees out of phase, then this is reactive power and represent the power flowing outside of the circuit as field. And yes, energy is require to maintain the flow inside the wire.
I haven't tested it yet but as far as I can envision the hairpin circuit could be run in any resonant mode.
And/or maybe with several nodes and anti-nodes on each bar.
I may be wrong on that.
Cheers
@Farmhand
QuoteI haven't tested it yet but as far as I can envision the hairpin circuit could be run in any resonant mode.
And/or maybe with several nodes and anti-nodes on each bar.
You would be correct, http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1898-11-17.htm see fig 3. Here we can see the connections are in close proximity on one side of the circuit which is identical to the hairpin circuit.
This is interesting--- A Lecher line is a pair of parallel uninsulated wires or rods held a precise distance apart. The separation is not critical but should be a small fraction of the wavelength; it ranges from less than a centimeter to over 10 cm.
AC
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.10.25, 13:30:13
I haven't tested it yet but as far as I can envision the hairpin circuit could be run in any resonant mode.
And/or maybe with several nodes and anti-nodes on each bar.
I may be wrong on that.
Cheers
It could be. This is why we check the video observing him slide the light up and down the bars. If there is several nodes, then we should see the light dim and bright and dim etc... Overall, there is no evident that there are several nodes.
I guess the argument is that current going through the lamps are normal conduction current between two different potentials. My argument is that it is non-conduction current. I have derived an experiment proposal that we can discuss to make our view clearer on weather the current is conduction or non conduction.
The picture shows a normal LC circuit. One leg is connected to ground with a sensing resistor R. The circuit is charge up to high voltage and discharge through switch S. Voltage wave form is monitor on capacitor C and resistance R. There are 3 major possible solutions:
1/ There is no current flowing through resistor R.
2/ The current flow through resistor R is highest when voltage C is highest.
3/ The current flow through resistor R is highest when voltage C is zero.
Solution 2 would suggest a conduction current.
Solution 3 would suggest a non conduction current.
Any comment?
I didn't watch the entire video I admit but I thought I saw the lights go dim as he slid the terminals up in the beginning.
That would indicate a node in the dim area. Wouldn't it ? Yes I see that would be one. :-[
Cheers
" This mode of using the currents is entirely safe and particularly convenient, but it requires a very uniform working of the break b employed for charging and discharging the condenser."
What would happen if break is not uniform ? I vote for non conduction currents Tesla used. Most probable displacement currents, watch fig 4 plates t t'
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.25, 13:14:28
Exn, so let's say his set up is quarter wave. The quarter wave in the middle picture below cause the light to dim and the quarter wave on the right cause the light to be bright?
His setup is a quarter wave with a closed end. The voltage node is at the top. The maximum voltage is at the bottom end. The line constitutes a high impedance for the generator.
The picture 2 is an open line. If it is a quarter-wave line, then the maximum voltage is at the top and the voltage node is at the bottom end. The line constitutes a low impedance for the generator.
The pictures are misleading, due to the use of the same coupling coils while the line length/wave length ratio is not specified. In practice, it couldn't be the same due to a considerable impedance difference.
In any case, the experimental results can be anything if the load is not negligible in comparison with the impedance between the generator and the load at the position of the load (for instance it's easy to understand that a low impedance load at mid distance on a half-wave line, transforms the first half-part of the line into a quarter-wave line with a closed end).
Quote
I guess I vision two energy. One is flowing inside the wire and one flow outside. Energy outside is the field but can be represent by the Electric and magnetic field flowing in the wire. Pretty much Voltage x Current. If they are 90 degrees out of phase, then this is reactive power and represent the power flowing outside of the circuit as field.
I agree. If there is no load, the energy is the integral of the energy density 1/2*ε0*E
2+1/2*B
2/µ0 over the volume occupied by the field. If the line doesn't radiate and there is no ohmic losses (= inifinite Q), the energy is constant, you would have needed energy only to build the field at the beginning, and then you wouldn't need energy to maintain it due to the resonant conditions of the line which mean a perpetual energy exchange between voltage/currents and fields, at the rate of the frequency.
Quote
And yes, energy is require to maintain the flow inside the wire.
So without further notice it's false. Energy is conserved. The need of energy implies that it goes somewhere. In the present case: heating the wire resistance and radiating EM waves (Q is not infinite). A resonant line is exactly like a LC circuit. The oscillations are damped due to the losses. You need energy only to fight the losses.
Quote from: forest on 2012.10.26, 06:35:30
" This mode of using the currents is entirely safe and particularly convenient, but it requires a very uniform working of the break b employed for charging and discharging the condenser."
What would happen if break is not uniform ? I vote for non conduction currents Tesla used. Most probable displacement currents, watch fig 4 plates t t'
If the break is not uniform the lights would probably flicker and there would be chance of low frequency shock.
I think the reason it can be safe to touch is because of the high frequency, over a certain frequency HV can be fairly safe and hard to even feel.
All the so called "cold electricity" demo's I've seen are high frequency I think. If not shocked by directly touching it why would putting it in water be so interesting ?
Still can get quite bad RF burns though from hot arcs I think. I would like to see a demonstration of "cold" electricity using less than 15 kHz.
I've noticed myself when playing with spark gapped Tesla coil HV arcs, if the spark gap stutters and the HF arc becomes LF sparks to my hand I suddenly get shocked.
I wouldn't touch a working set of stout bars unless the spark gap was reliable.
Cheers
Gibbs,
If the voltage is not so high as to ionize the air, then there will be no current through R.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.10.26, 11:41:53
Gibbs,
If the voltage is not so high as to ionize the air, then there will be no current through R.
Thanks Poynt,
I did a sim on this circuit. There is no current flowing through the Resistor. However, we see experiments show there is current flowing through just ground connection.
To understand free energy view, it is better to go back and look at our perspective on electricity and thermodynamics.
As far as I know, we seems to view electricity as a spring. We charge up a capacitor is compressing the spring.
Change in Internal energy (spring energy) = Work input + Work out
If there is no work out, then spring energy = input. If we extract work by magnetic coupling, then the internal energy is less. When the spring return to its initial state, the most energy we can recover is the internal energy of the spring. Work doesn't flow from high to low or low to high. There is no free energy. It's a heat engine.
However, when we view electricity as a fluid may it be ideal gas. Things are different.
Change in Internal energy = Work input + heat
The same scenario as the spring except when internal energy is return to its initial state, heat can flow from outside in thus recovery can be greater than stored internal energy. Ideally, it could equals to work input. Heat during compression can convert to work, heat flowing into the system can comes from anything ambient. This is a heat pump.
My view of EM radiation is work due to heat when we compress charges. It is not a result of momentum transfer when being collide.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.10.27, 12:50:36
...
My view of EM radiation is work due to heat when we compress charges. It is not a result of momentum transfer when being collide.
What is "heat" in your context? How is it operationnally related to the charges "compression"? What are you talking about?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.27, 15:04:03
What is "heat" in your context? How is it operationnally related to the charges "compression"? What are you talking about?
Heat in this context is just a form of energy. It is release or take in during compression/decompression. I don't speculate if it is electrical, nuclear, magnetic monopole, zipons, Higgs, ZPE, dark matter, lead in, lead out, virtual particals, aether, vortexes... but don't let me stop you from having fun. lol