Its his own money ,
He has had quite enough of the Suppresion and is taking matters into his own hands.
http://papimi.gr/osc.htm
Alsp being discussed here by our friend Duncan
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14440-nay-sayers-100-000-euros-bonus-payment.html#post239917
Thx for looking
Chet
If I were him, I would not be so concerned about being right, rather I would spend the 100,000 euros building a working device (or if he can't do it, hire someone to build it for him).
The final and useful proof of any new theory is a working device based on the new principle. Where is his working device demonstrating OU? Old CRT's are ubiquitous, should not be that difficult.
Maybe I've missed it, but I can't seem to find his actual device, just claims. Please point me to it.
ION
I have requested a bit more info to see if there is an experiment that can be used to Vet these claims.
thx
Chet
What he fails to account for is the fringe fields around the capacitor that deflects the electron beam. Classic blunder!
Thanks for the input
Monday I will hopefully be speaking with Pappas,I did hear from One Person who is making a challenge to the Claim
I am not sure about posting that Claim until I hear back from him.[Not Ernst from energetic who has his own unofficial claim pending].
Thx
Chet
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.09.21, 16:35:51
What he fails to account for is the fringe fields around the capacitor that deflects the electron beam. Classic blunder!
As I see it the mistake is an incredibly basic one.
The electric force does work in displacing a charged particle.
The magnetic force associated with a steady magnetic field does no work when a particle is displaced.
In other words....
When the charged particle moves through the capacitive deflection plates energy is applied from the plate when the particle is deflected.
He is assuming that no energy is lost from the deflection plates.
Have him transfer the money to my Swiss bank account C.C
@Wavewatcher
QuoteAs I see it the mistake is an incredibly basic one.
The electric force does work in displacing a charged particle.
The magnetic force associated with a steady magnetic field does no work when a particle is displaced.
I would suggest you brush up on basic electrostatics because what you are suggesting is absurd.
QuoteIn other words....
When the charged particle moves through the capacitive deflection plates energy is applied from the plate when the particle is deflected.
He is assuming that no energy is lost from the deflection plates.
No, Energy is not applied a Force is applied. Work is a Force applied over a Distance and Energy is a Force applied over a Distance per unit of Time. This is a common mistake and many people tend to confuse Force, Work and Energy however the concept is pretty easy to understand. Obviously Work and Energy cannot act on a body because these terms relate to a measure of something which is changing and not the cause of the change in itself.
I mean no offense but it would seem to me that people are simply picking and choosing the laws of physics as it suits their fancy.
AC
@Em
QuoteWhat he fails to account for is the fringe fields around the capacitor that deflects the electron beam. Classic blunder!
Another classic blunder is failing to recognize the fact that an electron beam is simply many individual electrons which happen to be following the same path. As such we could assume any applied force does not act on the group persay but the object which is of course the electron through it's field. Now if we have two charged plates and the force as it relates to the fields deflects an electron then is there a change in the energy state of the plates?. Well no that is absurd because we have already defined the charged state of the plates thus there fields as closed systems. Thus the plates and there fields cannot lose energy by the same rules which state they cannot gain energy.
Your grasping at straws to make your case in my opinion and the physics we know states that there is literally nothing we could do to change the charged state of the capacitor plates nor the fields generated by them in a closed system.
AC
No need to argue or guess, but this is to be expected. The proof of a theory....build it!
See reply #1
@Ion
QuoteNo need to argue or guess, but this is to be expected. The proof of a theory....build it!
I would agree completely, note I did not say I think it works only that there justification for it not working is seriously flawed... big difference.
AC
Quote from: ION on 2013.09.20, 14:09:02
If I were him, I would not be so concerned about being right, rather I would spend the 100,000 euros building a working device (or if he can't do it, hire someone to build it for him).
The final and useful proof of any new theory is a working device based on the new principle. Where is his working device demonstrating OU? Old CRT's are ubiquitous, should not be that difficult.
Maybe I've missed it, but I can't seem to find his actual device, just claims. Please point me to it.
Not my area of expertise, but I agree fully with this post. Seems an absurd gamble to me.
If he's got this kind of money burning a hole in his pocket, then as Ion says, why not simply spend that 100,000 euros on building a device that categorically proves his claims - a working device that no scrutiny can resist and no scientist can dispute? Strange ???
Needs a big sign: Approach with caution!
FD said:
QuoteSeems an absurd gamble to me.
What is absurd is that the judge of the contest is also one of the contestants (and the one that placed the bet).
Yes, approach with caution seems appropriate here.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.09.22, 15:55:50
@Wavewatcher
I would suggest you brush up on basic electrostatics because what you are suggesting is absurd.
Also no offense but you should take a moment to do a little brushing too.
I did not say force and energy were the same thing. Granted: It would have been better to say...
QuoteWhen the charged particle moves through the capacitive deflection plates energy is applied used from the plate when the particle is deflected.
Here is a link to a lecture containing the same words in a first year physics textbook (late 70's) I still have: http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/lecture22a.pdf
Energy is used (work is being done - the effect of force over time on the charge in motion) in deflecting (causing a change in angular momentum) a moving charge, single electron or not, when using potential difference between deflection plates to do so.
I have no intention of trying to collect the prize. That
would be absurd. If they had that much money they should have been smart enough to build the experiments and have the results vetted before making a web claim.
BTW: If I was just picking something to argue against the claim - I only had one pick since the first thing I thought when reading the claim was what I posted. So what if I didn't quote verbatim from the book. Last time I reviewed that chapter was at least 20 years ago.
@Wavewatcher
QuoteHere is a link to a lecture containing the same words in a first year physics textbook (late 70's) I still have: http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/lecture22a.pdf
Energy is used (work is being done - the effect of force over time on the charge in motion) in deflecting (causing a change in angular momentum) a moving charge, single electron or not, when using potential difference between deflection plates to do so.
I would agree and think we are speaking of two different effects. My impression from the diagram was that he was using fixed capacitors that is the charge on the capacitors does not change due to an external input. In which case the plates of the capacitors may be charged initially and the input removed not unlike two charged spheres. Now if work was performed on a charged plate then energy must dissipate however this is not the case and the charged state remains constant.
I believe you are referring to an electron tube where the charge on the plates varies over time from a variable source in which case energy is dissipated through the standard mechanisms, ie I2R and leakage.
Ok I just checked the link, I think I see the problem, http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/lecture22a.pdf, page 5
QuoteWork
The electric force does work in displacing a charged particle
The magnetic force associated with a steady magnetic field does no work when a particle is displaced
I think the confusion lies around the terms deflect and displace, a change in velocity constitutes work however a change in direction does not.
This may relate to the claim in question because if the charge on the plates is constant then the charged particle(electron) may change direction but not velocity, only velocity relates directly to Energy. However if the capacitor was an integral part of a larger capacitive system then we could be dealing with a partial charge imbalance in a parametric system involving the capacitance. You see this is one of those gray areas, did the field of the moving electron change the capacitance or did the changing capacitance move the electron? If so when and where?. At this point I can only speculate as to my knowledge this experiment has never been done before. As well most people become hopelessly lost in the dynamics of relatively simple parametric systems.
Again i'm not saying anything works as claimed however intelligence is not defined by denial it is defined by the ability to solve the problem at hand. It may work, it may not however if I could make it work from my perspective then I don't really care whether it does or not.
AC
From AC:
QuoteAgain i'm not saying anything works as claimed however intelligence is not defined by denial it is defined by the ability to solve the problem at hand. It may work, it may not however if I could make it work from my perspective then I don't really care whether it does or not.
I need to print this enigmatic statement out and remember it as one of the most interesting statements I have ever seen posted anywhere.
Where do we follow Dr Pappas's replies to claims received?
And did he ever build a working prototype? Does he demand a working prototype to prove him "wrong", or is this all in the theoretical realm? Thx
@Ion
QuoteI need to print this enigmatic statement out and remember it as one of the most interesting statements I have ever seen posted anywhere.
Lol, my thoughts are simple on this subject and I cannot understand the logic regarding why people are so quick to judge without facts and disprove a technology. I believe they are afraid, deep down everything in their being tells them it cannot be true for if it was then they would be wrong and if they were wrong about this then what else could they be wrong about. Couple this with patriotism, extremism, beliefs, personality traits and a world which is overly critical of any failure and it is easy to see why outright denial is the easier option.
On the other hand I do not care if it works or not, if it provokes creative thought which leads to better technologies or if somehow I could make it work in any way then it's all good. In fact I have absolutely no interest in the conception of a non-working device because the concept in itself is pointless, who needs another non-working device?.
I guess in a sense we could say the debate here is retarded ,lol, it is negative in nature always moving towards disproval and failure. We need to move in the opposite direction, we need positive creative thought advancing towards a working technology.
AC
AC said:
QuoteOn the other hand I do not care if it works or not, if it provokes creative thought which leads to better technologies or if somehow I could make it work in any way then it's all good. In fact I have absolutely no interest in the conception of a non-working device because the concept in itself is pointless, who needs another non-working device, lol.
I agree totally with what you say in the quote above, however it is not at all the same as the prior quote I cited which was:
Quote"Again i'm not saying anything works as claimed however intelligence is not defined by denial it is defined by the ability to solve the problem at hand. It may work, it may not however if I could make it work from my perspective then I don't really care whether it does or not."
I believe there is a term for this.
Believe it or not, I understood the statement ;D
However, I had the facts and presented my thoughts based upon those facts. The only thing I didn't go into is the recent arguments of Lorentz possible incompatibility with relativity. If they are correct, our work can finally begin and the claims in this subject may not be far off O0
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.09.23, 20:51:41
The only thing I didn't go into is the recent arguments of Lorentz possible incompatibility with relativity. If they are correct, our work can finally begin and the claims in this subject may not be far off O0
Interesting. Lorentz allowed for a preferred frame, Einstein did not. I think this is the major difference between their views. Both used the Lorentz Transformation equations, derived by Lorentz.
Can you provide further information, WW?
Here is the abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096
There are many arguments against it.
One example > http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf
My solution to the paradox is that Einstein was right in the beginning. In one frame of reference the object of interest may appear as a magnetic dipole. The same, from another frame of reference, may appear as a magnetic monopole(or 'point charge', whichever you prefer).
Non-conducting permanent magnets are the only realistic source of hidden momentum.
You don't see nickle plated neos used in TPUs ^-^
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.09.24, 10:23:21
My solution to the paradox is that Einstein was right in the beginning. In one frame of reference the object of interest may appear as a magnetic dipole. The same, from another frame of reference, may appear as a magnetic monopole(or 'point charge', whichever you prefer).
Non-conducting permanent magnets are the only realistic source of hidden momentum.
You don't see nickle plated neos used in TPUs ^-^
Second paper notes
QuoteThe most practical realization of the present example would involve magnetic fields due
to intrinsic (Amperian) magnetic momentums, such as associated with a nonconducting
permanent magnet, or a neutron
This is intriguing stuff. I'm reading both papers, but not 100% sure what this "hidden momentum" is... Can you explain, WW, from your "frame of reference"?
"Electromagnetic fields carry energy, momentum, and angular momentum. The momentum density, ϵ0(E×B), accounts (among other things) for the pressure of light. But even static fields can carry momentum, and this would appear to contradict a general theorem that the total momentum of a closed system is zero if its center of energy is at rest."
IMO: It is yet another 'fudged factor' to make the math come out correctly and the reason there is attraction an repulsion in electromagnetics.
Here is an analysis:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/current.pdf
Ok Im back ...
What is absurd is that AC thinks our explanations are absurd, obscuring his own initial absurdness which now has magnified to total absurdness, which now has taken on a life of its own, and is so strong that it pulls in more absurness, like this.
:)
@Wavewatcher
Quote"Electromagnetic fields carry energy, momentum, and angular momentum. The momentum density, ϵ0(E×B), accounts (among other things) for the pressure of light. But even static fields can carry momentum, and this would appear to contradict a general theorem that the total momentum of a closed system is zero if its center of energy is at rest."
IMO: It is yet another 'fudged factor' to make the math come out correctly and the reason there is attraction an repulsion in electromagnetics.
Yes I would agree, it is a fudge factor of sorts and it is quite comical relative to what most people actually believe. You see Maxwell stated clearly in his work that he will only consider the main process and exclude all others external to it and those he believes do not apply. Which would lead me to believe nobody here nor in mainstream science has actually read Maxwells original work in his own words.
Let me repeat that just in case it didn't quite sink in to the minds of everyone here..... Maxwell stated catagorically that he will exclude all forces external to the closed system and those he believes do not apply. I had to laugh when I read this because what Maxwell actually said and did in truth bears little resemblence to what most people think. People have replaced facts with popular opinion and most of what I have read in the average textbooks is sheer BS, the internet age in it's finest hour.
I agree with what your saying :)
AC
@Em
QuoteOk Im back ...
What is absurd is that AC thinks our explanations are absurd, obscuring his own initial absurdness which now has magnified to total absurdness, which now has taken on a life of its own, and is so strong that it pulls in more absurness, like this.
Absurdity is relative my friend...
more absurd than what we see on the news each night, or maybe primary transportation less than 15% efficient power generation under 50%, or one man burning a family to death because he does not agree with what they believe, or an illegal invasion of another country based on a lie killing 1.5 million innocent men, woman and children.... and nobody asks why?. More absurd than demanding growth which is unsustainable and can only end in our demise, or demanding profit no matter who may be killed or harmed in the process. Maybe as absurd as the man who states he is open minded then is overly critical of everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion.
No, you have it all backwards absurdity is the norm, it is the dream most strive for which binds them all and it is only the few who are willing to question everything including themselves who may see it for what it is.
AC
To quote myself:
Quote
It is a good idea to read original works and consider the exact context in which they were discovered.
EM,
"like this" ?
Like what?
The quotes I pulled from common physics text books and papers generated by various academia?
WW, that was refering to my own writing. :). Just poking some fun.
BTW I agree with what you said, but more so with what i said, imagine that! :D
Pappas is thinking very superficially about a capacitor, and its fields. It appears from his diagrams of final velocity, that the electron has maintained its Ux velocity while adding a Uy component. But due to fringe fields, on the edges, thats not so. After all, these are conservative fields, so if you return the particle to its original location, net energy is zero.
EM
Any update on this Pappas' challenge?
Pappas talks about the edge effects of the capacitor at the bottom of the page:
http://papimi.gr/osc.htm
ah ha ... Hi - I'll make this comment here because this is where I was when I thought of this.
-- momentum of static fields is the question... So if you had a field in which a charged particle felt a steady force as it moved down a field gradient then you have a boring old constant field gradient - nothing exciting there. But you ask yourself, what is the implication of a field in which the moving charge experiences a changing force? -- of course you say that's a simple gradient field with all it's parallels to a mass in a radial gravitational field... ah, but what if the radial electric field is not radially symmetrical so if you a spherical integration you find a net force vector -- :), then you have to conclude that the generator of the field, weather it appeared static or not, possessed a net, and non-zero, momentum... again you smartly deduce that in a truly static system there will not be non-zero spherically integrated force ~ except under impulse conditions within a specified volume...
Please contact me if you can or have deduced the consequence ;)
cheers
Mark.
Mark,
If you are up to it....
http://www.ate.uni-duisburg-essen.de/data/postgraduate_lecture/AJP_2009_Griffiths.pdf
In any case, angular momentum resulting from a particle motion through a static electric field causes that static electric field to do work, unlike the same resulting from a static magnetic field.
At least, that is the way it works in my experiments.
So, should there be any surprising consequences?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.11.04, 18:33:20
Mark,
If you are up to it....
http://www.ate.uni-duisburg-essen.de/data/postgraduate_lecture/AJP_2009_Griffiths.pdf
In any case, angular momentum resulting from a particle motion through a static electric field causes that static electric field to do work, unlike the same resulting from a static magnetic field.
At least, that is the way it works in my experiments.
So, should there be any surprising consequences?
Interesting. O0 Can you tell us more about your experiments?
Also, you're saying that a static electric field does work, whereas a static magnetic field does not -- right?
Finally, do your results uphold Dr Pappas' claims, or not?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.11.04, 21:03:42
Interesting. O0 Can you tell us more about your experiments?
Also, you're saying that a static electric field does work, whereas a static magnetic field does not -- right?
Finally, do your results uphold Dr Pappas' claims, or not?
The experiments I referred to had to do with beam deflection on the CRT of an old oscilloscope. I noticed that the permanent magnets used to control centering did no work to center the beam (obviously). On the other hand, the HV plates and display deflection circuitry used a sizable amount of current to draw the trace.
I played with homebrew deflection yokes to eliminate the HV circuits and found that the magnetic deflection circuitry used the same amount of power for a given set of patterns whether there was a beam to deflect or not. The HV plate deflection scheme power usage varied with the complexity and duration of the trace.
I had enough doubts about the differences to repeat the experiments with NIST calibrated test equipment from work. My results weren't off by much.
My conclusion was that magnetic fields do no work on traveling particles even though the particles experience a change in angular momentum. The same change in angular momentum, as a result of traveling through an electrostatic field, uses energy stored in the electrostatic field. It also seems to be possible to change the electrostatic charge level (increase or decrease) by changing the angle of the driven beam WRT the deflection plate field.
That was about 20 years ago.
Dr. Pappas seems to think the electrostatic fields use no additional energy when they cause deflection.
Perhaps, he is correct. All I see is when such claims are made it is usually because 'hidden momentum' isn't understood or considered. When I think I understand it completely I let you all know.
Don't hold your breath :D
Thanks, WW. I appreciate your doing actual experiments to get your answers as you showed here. O0
Quote from: WaveWatcher
Dr. Pappas seems to think the electrostatic fields use no additional energy when they cause deflection.
I wonder how Dr. Pappas would explain the operation
of the Magnetron? Or the Traveling Wave Tube?
Granted, both types of fields are at work there
but each plays an important role.