Here is the suggestion for a free-running magnet motor that uses a capacitor to alter the phase of the Lenz reaction, and switched so as to use attraction between magnet and coil for that part of the cycle only where it provides positive torque. Enjoy.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.19, 19:10:21
When connected to a resistor the coil appears in the magnetic circuit as a "magnetic inductance Lm" obeying mmf=-LmdΦ/dt, that mmf of course coming from the coil current flowing into the load resistor. The value of Lm is N2/R where N is the number of turns and R is the load resistor.
Let's see how that stacks up against reality when R is set to zero as in a superconducting coil.
If L
m = N
2/R then with a superconducting coil L
m = ∞
To me, infinite "magnetic inductance" means that the magnetic flux is frozen through the coil (a fragment of the magnetic circuit in series) and does not vary in time. So far so good...
However, the expression mmf=-L
m(dΦ/dt) is confusing or wrong because when L
m = ∞ then it becomes mmf=-∞(dΦ/dt), which suggests that the mmf reaches infinite levels in response to the slightest change of flux, while in reality the mmf reaches only a level necessary to prevent any change in flux that penetrates that coil, as is shown in
this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14).
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.19, 19:10:21
In AC waveforms that dΦ/dt is a 90 degree phase shift, the reaction current is shifted 90 degrees from the applied flux. This is perhaps more readily understood when the coil is part of a magnetic circuit having sinusoidal flux Φ driven through it.
That other situation, when R>0, is shown in
this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUaqXk6axOo), unfortunately I don't see a lag or 90º phase shift between flux penetrating the loop's area and current induced in this loop. That EM simulator and its author (prof. Belcher) earned a lot of credibility with me and other scientists, by their sheer accuracy.
@verpies
QuoteTo me, infinite "magnetic inductance" means that the magnetic flux is frozen through the coil (a fragment of the magnetic circuit in series) and does not vary in time. So far so good...
I had similar thoughts along those lines many years ago. If we could hold a magnetic field in place in time without a proportional input then remove it the work performed in that time cannot be proportional to the input. I then devised what I would call the "big inductor", I tried a 5000' spool of 20 gauge wire but the time constant was still small. So the question remained how do I build a ridiculously large inductor with an extreme time constant?. My answer came in a most unexpected form... I replaced one inductor with a DC motor using the mechanical momentum of the rotor as a substitution for the electrical momentum of an inductor. Yes there are mechanical losses however when compared to I^2R losses they are not unreasonable. Thus I could produce a time constant per se which could be measured in minutes versus milliseconds.
I have found many problems relate to our perceptions of how we think things are supposed to work versus how we can make them work in reality. Many times they do not relate to equations but understanding the qualities of what we want, what we have at our disposal and how we can make it work to get what we want.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.20, 03:51:02
I replaced one inductor with a DC motor using the mechanical momentum of the rotor as a substitution for the electrical momentum of an inductor. Yes there are mechanical losses however when compared to I^2R losses they are not unreasonable. Thus I could produce a time constant per se which could be measured in minutes versus milliseconds.
That's pretty clever.
Another way to obtain large time constants is to use an
actual HTS (http://shop.can-superconductors.com/index.php?id_product=20&controller=product) like this student (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg402619/#msg402619) of prof. Belcher.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.19, 19:10:21
...to alter the phase of the Lenz reaction, and switched so as to use attraction between magnet and coil for that part of the cycle only where it provides positive torque. Enjoy.
Smudge
This video seems is along the way for described intent:
Just instead of timed capacitor charge and discharge it uses induced current to neutralize Lenz force so the magnets are passing freely in second half of cycle...
Cheers!
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.19, 20:25:32
Let's see how that stacks up against reality when R is set to zero as in a superconducting coil.
If Lm = N2/R then with a superconducting coil Lm = ∞
To me, infinite "magnetic inductance" means that the magnetic flux is frozen through the coil (a fragment of the magnetic circuit in series) and does not vary in time. So far so good...
However, the expression mmf=-Lm(dΦ/dt) is confusing or wrong
If you look at my paper "Analyzing Transformers in the Magnetic Domain" you will find the derivation of that expression.
Quotebecause when Lm = ∞ then it becomes mmf=-∞(dΦ/dt), which suggests that the mmf reaches infinite levels in response to the slightest change of flux, while in reality the mmf reaches only a level necessary to prevent any change in flux that penetrates that coil, as is shown in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14).
But R=0 creates the situation where dΦ/dt=0 so now you have mmf=-∞*0 which is just as crazy. I am happy that R=0 creates the mmf needed to ensure dΦ/dt=0, and that mmf=-L
m(dΦ/dt) is correct for any other value of R. Perhaps this is better put as dΦ/dt=-mmf/L
m which ensures that dΦ/dt=0 when L=∞.
QuoteThat other situation, when R>0, is shown in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUaqXk6axOo), unfortunately I don't see a lag or 90º phase shift between flux penetrating the loop's area and current induced in this loop. That EM simulator and its author (prof. Belcher) earned a lot of credibility with me and other scientists, by their sheer accuracy.
That is not a continuous alternating sinusoidal flux situation so phase shift is meaningless there. If you analyzed the rotating magnet and coil system in the magnetic domain where the coupling between the two appears as a variable reluctance you would find my analysis correct. And the fly in the ointment is that word "continuous" since that represents an un-switched sine wave, not a switched part of a sine wave. In my proposed system the capacitor would be switched onto the coil when the induced voltage is at maximum, so there would be a sudden inrush of current that is undesirable. This could be overcome by having the capacitor pre-charged to that peak voltage, then you find that the capacitor gets discharged, its voltage falling while the current rises and that is indeed the phase shift that I mentioned. However you can now argue that you have supplied energy in the charged capacitor and that needs looking into to see whether the system is really OU.
Smudge
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.08.20, 08:14:20
This video seems is along the way for described intent:
Just instead of timed capacitor charge and discharge it uses induced current to neutralize Lenz force so the magnets are passing freely in second half of cycle...
Cheers!
Don't see any induced currents there. As for Roney's magic stator having asymmetrical response I think you will find that horseshoe magnets have the same characteristic. Bring their curved back ends together and there is little force. Bring their pole faces together and get huge force.
Smidge
Smudge
I understand your argument that current will lag voltage in an inductive circuit, however it does take current to charge the capacitor, and this coil would not care if the current drawing device were a resistor capacitor or short circuit.
Do the induced poles have the correct polarity in your schematic drawing?. I thought the induced pole would create a mirror image repulsive force if current was flowing due to the induction and if no current were flowing (open switch) there would be no repulsion or attraction.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding. At any rate, this should be easy to test.
ION,
If you imagine the capacitor connected all the time, then consider the AC voltage induced into the coil being across the capacitor, you will find (a) that the voltage is 90 degree phased from the flux, (b) the current is 90 degree phased from that and (c) the current is then in phase with the flux and flowing in a direction to create even more flux. This is simply Lenz with a phase shift. Remember Lenz is not absolute, there is already a 90 degree phase shift between flux and voltage which across a resistive load creates the current. So putting a reactance across the coil can either move the current to be in phase with the flux or in anti-phase, depending on whether that reactance is inductive or capacitive. For many years I thought this needed an inductive load, but having slogged through the phasor diagrams I now believe it should be capacitive. It should be easy to determine by measuring the current and noting its phase relative to the rotor movement. That continuous connection does not create self running, it just shifts the torque waveform and with the reactive load you just get the sort of cyclic cogging torque you would see if there were permeable material inside open circuit coils. The induced poles have the polarity seen in my image, but 180 degrees later the polarity is reversed. Whether switching the capacitor in and out achieves self running is another matter.
Note the omega squared term in the reduction in reluctance. When you consider that reduction compared to the reluctance of the air space inside the coil you can relate things to the inductance of the coil. You then find that the combined reluctance goes to zero at a frequency where the reactance of the capacitor is equal to the reactance of the coil divided by Nagaoka's k factor (this is for single layer coils). XC=XL/k So there is some sort of resonance at play here.
Smudge
Ok Then it's on my list of things to try. I think a simple reed switch will probably take care of the switch opening, but if something more exotic is needed, I can arrange for that.
That said do you have any thoughts on switch position vs angle of rotor for 360 degrees? A timing diagram.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.20, 17:41:24
Don't see any induced currents there. As for Roney's magic stator having asymmetrical response I think you will find that horseshoe magnets have the same characteristic. Bring their curved back ends together and there is little force. Bring their pole faces together and get huge force.
Smidge
The tin layer around stator magnet on winded isolation layer and makes shorted coil. As soon as the external magnet is passing, it creates current inside which creates opposing magnetic field. This field reacts with the magnetic field from the magnet inside and in the summary you get induced magnetic field neutralized. Same happen with concealed magnetic pole of the magnet. You can test it by making one as per it was shown in:
Cheers!
There is a file and video on this site of Mike's window motor, courtesy of Graham
Direct file download:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3112.0;attach=19278
EDIT: go to post #13 for zipped file attachment
Unzip the file and the video download link is on the first page, schematics follow.
Supposedly free running and charging a capacitor. This uses a shorting coil approach, magnet rotating in a flattened solenoid, somewhat reminiscent of the Joe Newman motor/ generator. Back in 1985 I built a scale model of the Newman motor , about a cubic foot. It used a special shorting commutator.
Regarding the switched capacitor idea, do you think the magnet rotating inside solenoid, as in Mike or Newman would be a better approach than two separate coils.?
From the video, Mike's device seems to work, but who knows.
Quote from: ION on 2015.08.21, 12:55:07
There is a file and video on this site of Mike's window motor, courtesy of Graham
Direct file download:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3112.0;attach=19278
Unzip the file and the video download is on the first page, schematics follow.
supposedly free running and charging a capacitor. This uses a shorting coil approach, magnet rotating in a flattened solenoid, somewhat reminiscent of the Joe Newman motor/ generator. Back in 1985 I built a scale model of the Newman motor , about a cubic foot. It used a special shorting commutator.
Regarding the switched capacitor idea, do you think the magnet rotating inside solenoid, as in Mike or Newman would be a better approach than two separate coils.?
From the video, Mike's device seems to work, but who knows.
Good day Ion
Seems like there is a problem with the file download:
"The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."
Is it just me, or is there some trick to this?
take care, peace
lost_bro
Quote from: lost_bro on 2015.08.21, 21:15:11
Good day Ion
Seems like there is a problem with the file download:
"The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."
Is it just me, or is there some trick to this?
take care, peace
lost_bro
Hi lost_bro
Good to see you here.
Try the attachment here.
Hi Folks,
Here is a direct link to the thread from 2007 on overunity.com forum and the video is attached to the first post by hartiberlin:
http://overunity.com/1988/is-this-the-first-selfrunning-overunity-motor-wo-batteries-mikes-motor/msg23445/#msg23445
Gyula
After reading most of the 65 pages in that thread, it appears to me that nobody has been able to reproduce the "self running" of this "houdini" style motor.
Also, the .zip file above appears to contain some kind of document with a .mht file type. I don't seem to have anything that will open this file. Anybody have any suggestions?
The amazingly poor quality of the .wmv video would not allow us to see if external power is being fed to the motor by thin wires in that video.
Somebody offered 2500 dollars for a live demonstration of the self-runner, by Mike or anyone else. No takers:
http://overunity.com/1988/is-this-the-first-selfrunning-overunity-motor-wo-batteries-mikes-motor/msg26385/#msg26385
Hi TK
the .mht opens fine on my windows comp, but don't worry about it as it is the saved version of the 64 pages on OU.com you just read as oer the ou.com link posted above.
Not only could no one replicate it but even Mike could not replicate it,if my memory serves me correct he took it to his science teacher to work it out and they finally unwound the coil to see if they could work out what was special, once the coil was unwound they were never able to rewind a working coil, the suspicion was that there may have been an internal short which disappeared when unwound.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.08.22, 06:25:41
Also, the .zip file above appears to contain some kind of document with a .mht file type. I don't seem to have anything that will open this file. Anybody have any suggestions?
Internet Explorer can open this .MHT file.
Also the direct link to the video referenced in this .MHT file is
here (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1988.0;attach=6307).
The irony of the Mike window motor was that Bhoudini himself thought it was faked by the addition of a battery.
I think the science teacher story was verified, but not the part about it being disassembled, never to work again. Mike did disappear and stopped responding to PM's though.
Mike claimed that the solid state relay, which switched in some boost from one of the coils, was the key.
There was a whole thread on this at Grump's gn0stic forum as well, with Bhoudini himself being a member, if I recall correctly.
Dear All.
I spent the whole of a winter on that one!
Bought all the bits, SS Relay, Hall effect switch but ended up with a single contact drive pulse and 3 contact output from a 1000 turn coil. Ie, all mechanical.
It ran constantly for 3 months with zero battery drain on a 7 Ah LAB. My rotor was made from 6, x 25 x 30 x 40 Neo magnets on an hexagonal SS core. It was probably the closest device that I built!!
It was suggested that a 9 V PP3 had been put inside the gutted case of the SS Relay, if you study the photos against the schematic there does seem to be a connection discrepancy.
Ah well, all that's left of my motor are a few rather heavy Copper coils.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.08.22, 17:35:35
Dear All.
I spent the whole of a winter on that one!
Bought all the bits, SS Relay, Hall effect switch but ended up with a single contact drive pulse and 3 contact output from a 1000 turn coil. Ie, all mechanical.
It ran constantly for 3 months with zero battery drain on a 7 Ah LAB. My rotor was made from 6, x 25 x 30 x 40 Neo magnets on an hexagonal SS core. It was probably the closest device that I built!!
,,,
Cheers Grum.
3 months with zero battery drain? hmmmm...
Do you have any photos or videos of how you did this?
Thanks!
I visualize an air-core coil (solenoid) with a PM spinning in the middle of the cylinder... Say PM starts 90deg to the axis, then the S pole moves to the right, so the PM becomes parallel with the axis... Does a N pole form at the right extreme of the solenoid? i wonder. (assuming the coil shorted so current is free to flow)
That is, does the current flow "try to oppose" the change in B-flux? or, is the motion of magnet-turning impeded as one might expect from Lenz' law? in which case I'd expect a S pole to form at the right extreme to repel the S pole of the turning magnet.
Cool stuff!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.08.22, 18:36:08
3 months with zero battery drain? hmmmm...
Do you have any photos or videos of how you did this?
Thanks!
Dear Steve.
Sorry, no.
That was eight years ago. It took over half an hour just to download that 3 minute video !! I did not have any digital equipment, as such, back then. Still using celluloid film etc.
The device was simple enough though. Two coils in rectangular " Window frame " shape, a run coil of a few hundred turns and a pickup of 1000 turns. I used two separate Brass cams, one single lobe for running and a 3 lobe for pickup. They were carried on the end of the drive shaft and Vernier adjustable in both point close time and dwell time.
The strange thing is though, during it's long distance run my Son who slept in the room above suffered almost continuous lack of sleep until the day I decided to switch it off !! That story is quite often mentioned within the family !!
Cheers Grum.
Hi Folks,
All of a sudden, there was a follow-up on Mike's window motor by John Bhudini this July at energeticforum.com, and he wrote two posts.
This is his first post:
May have found it
Ok, sometimes you must walk away from things for a long time and just let things fester in your head. If you look at the circuit diagram Mike posted you will see something that I may have overlooked. I don't know why I missed it, could have been thinking about something else. When I hooked a small battery in place of mikes ss circuit the motor ran as normal. That is why I came to the conclusion that mike hid a battery in the ss relay. So now back to the circuit, if you look you will see that when the switch is on the two coils make up an Autoformer, this type of device builds voltage without changing the impedance of the driving coil so the driving coil does not see the load of the capacitor the Autoformer works like a basic car spark coil. The only reason I say this is I had a job with some radio circuits
where I had to make this type of transformer to supply the load of the antenna without effecting the transmitter. Amplifiers in the 70's used these transformers (Mcintosh) you could short the amp out and nothing would happen. I have experimented with this type of transformer and it is possible to build a Window Motor to run like this but you cannot take any power from it, Unity. I know this is late timing but at least I have posted it.
John B
This is his second post:
May have found it
Yes, Unity is good, I just don't know how I could have missed this, it's really bugging me. I have done a test with the original motor and if you hook a bridge and a capacitor to the window coil and spin the motor up it charges the cap fast. Now if you pulse the motor with S1 it keeps running for a very long time. The key to it is the transformer as I stated. I could not find a diagram to post what I mean so I must draw it. It is important on how the second part of the coil is hooked up. The polarity must be correct and the timing of the switch. Be back later with drawing.
JB
He has not shown any drawing since then.
To help visualize what he said, Mike's schematic is available either in ION's zip file above or at the overunity.com forum, link is in my Reply #14 above.
I took his posts from this: http://tinyurl.com/o8g2f88 (http://tinyurl.com/o8g2f88) and the second post is 3 posts down from his first one.
Gyula
hmmmm... does anyone understand this well enough to back-engineer a drawing? since he "forgot" to post it?
QuoteQuoteThe key to it is the transformer as I stated. I could not find a diagram to post what I mean so I must draw it. It is important on how the second part of the coil is hooked up. The polarity must be correct and the timing of the switch. Be back later with drawing.
JB
He has not shown any drawing since then.
Hi Folks,
I think we ought to respect this thread: it has the topic on switched capacitor motors by Smudge and now we have more posts on Windows motor than on the switched capacitor one...
Sorry that I also increased off topic by my posts and perhaps there is a Window motor thread somewhere here which is reachable by everyone? Then a moderator could move the posts to that Windows motor thread.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2015.08.22, 22:22:29
Hi Folks,
I think we ought to respect this thread: it has the topic on switched capacitor motors by Smudge and now we have more posts on Windows motor than on the switched capacitor one...
Sorry that I also increased off topic by my posts and perhaps there is a Window motor thread somewhere here which is reachable by everyone? Then a moderator could move the posts to that Windows motor thread.
Gyula
You are right gyula and I derailed it sorry, I only meant to ask Smudge if he thought the window motor type construction would lend itself more suitably to his idea, then it took off in that direction. Still waiting on Smudge's reply. I would like to see everyone post their thoughts on Smudge's idea as presented in his paper.
my original question:
QuoteRegarding the switched capacitor idea, do you think the magnet rotating inside solenoid, as in Mike or Newman would be a better approach than two separate coils.?
Kind regards, ION
"Oh, sure, years ago I built a motor that ran forever and never discharged its battery. But I took it apart to see why it was working, and now it doesn't work any more."
How many times have we heard this story, or variants of it?
NEVER NEVER EVER FOR ANY REASON TAKE APART A "WORKING" FREE ENERGY OVERUNITY DEVICE!!! NEVER!!!
If you feel that you must take something apart, BUILD ANOTHER IDENTICAL UNIT and take that one apart!
Good grief.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.08.23, 00:17:40
"Oh, sure, years ago I built a motor that ran forever and never discharged its battery. But I took it apart to see why it was working, and now it doesn't work any more."
How many times have we heard this story, or variants of it?
NEVER NEVER EVER FOR ANY REASON TAKE APART A "WORKING" FREE ENERGY OVERUNITY DEVICE!!! NEVER!!!
If you feel that you must take something apart, BUILD ANOTHER IDENTICAL UNIT and take that one apart!
Good grief.
Yes those stories are quite incredible, and the M.O. persists to this day with minor variations on a theme.
I agree totally with your sentiments on this.
Been away from home again in the middle of nowhere with no 3g or 4g signals so no internet :( . It will take me a while to study that Window motor meanwhile bear with me while I produce a paper that makes things clearer. Before I go here is something to think about. Having the coil connected to a capacitor really does synthesize the effect of having permeable material in the core. The math that proves this will be shown in the paper but note it is for continuous AC, not for sudden switch-on. When the capacitor is connected the magnet is at right angles to the coil axis and the coil is producing its voltage peak. So the capacitor has to be already charged to that voltage, then there is no sudden inrush of current and the thing can continue in LC sinusoidal fashion with the capacitor voltage falling while the current rises. At the end of that quarter cycle the voltage is zero and the current is maximum, so the capacitor has been discharged. The magnet is now aligned with the coil axis. That is the point where the capacitor is disconnected and you can argue that the mechanical energy gained (equivalent to the magnet poles being drawn towards the synthesized core) is equal to the capacitor energy lost. But note the current, that is maximum and we want it to become zero, but you can't just turn off current in an inductive circuit, there is some energy there to be recovered by the bemf spike. Let's suppose we can quickly recover that energy and use it to re-charge the capacitor ready for the next quarter cycle attraction. Is that system OU? That remains to be seen but there is a good chance it is. During that attraction phase the magnet is seeing flux being added to its own flux, the magnet is moving away from its natural load line and that change is exactly what is needed for the atomic dipoles in the magnet to supply energy. If the coil did contain permeable material we would get cyclic cogging torque which averages to zero. That energy extracted from the quantum domain gets fed back on the next quarter cycle so is never seen. Perhaps this is one way of capturing that energy.
Smudge
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.08.21, 08:03:57
The tin layer around stator magnet on winded isolation layer and makes shorted coil. As soon as the external magnet is passing, it creates current inside which creates opposing magnetic field. This field reacts with the magnetic field from the magnet inside and in the summary you get induced magnetic field neutralized. Same happen with concealed magnetic pole of the magnet. You can test it by making one as per it was shown in:
Cheers!
The demonstration of the hand-held stators exhibiting attraction force in one orientation and not exhibiting attraction force in another orientation cannot be due to induced currents, they aren't moving. There is nothing magical in those stators, anyone skillled in FEMM simulations could show their characteristics. As I said, horseshoe magnets have the same properties.
Smudge
To help understand Lenz's law in relation to sinusoidal flux here is a simple page illustrating the situation with rising and falling flux. I have simply split the AC waveform into two parts showing the flux rising and then falling. With a resistive load the current induced into the coil is in-phase with the voltage and this leads to the standard Lenz's Law where the flux from that current tries to oppose the change. It doesn't necessarily create opposite polarity flux, it is opposing the flux change, it is not opposing the flux per se.
Then I show the situation with an inductive load where the current lags the induced voltage. Now it is seen that we do get Lenz's Law as an absolute, the flux from that current is of the opposite polarity as the applied flux, the total flux is decreased. That is exactly the situation for having a diamagnetic material within the coil, the field is reduced from what it would be if the material were not there.
Next I show the capacitive load where the current leads the induced voltage. Now the flux from that current is of the same polarity as the applied flux, the total flux is increased. That is exactly the situation for having permeable material within the coil.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.23, 14:23:37
Having the coil connected to a capacitor really does synthesize the effect of having permeable material in the core. The math that proves this will be shown in the paper but note it is for continuous AC, not for sudden switch-on.
Yes, for the n
th AC cycle, but not for the 1
st cycle...and there is the crux of the matter.
VErpies:
QuoteYes, for the nth AC cycle, but not for the 1st cycle...and there is the crux of the matter.
Huh?
I'm trying to follow all this - thanks Smudge for patiently explaining...
Now, is Verpies correct? indeed, what is he saying?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.08.24, 13:19:22
VErpies:
Huh?
I'm trying to follow all this - thanks Smudge for patiently explaining...
Now, is Verpies correct? indeed, what is he saying?
Verpies hasn't quite got it. He is correct if you just switch an uncharged capacitor into the circuit. At the point where you want the capacitor switched in the flux through the coil is going through zero, its rate of change is maximum and the coil is producing maximum voltage. What you don't want is that voltage creating a sudden inrush of current into the capacitor. Therefore the capacitor has to be pre-charged to that voltage, and that creates the condition that would apply to the n
th AC cycle. Then the system carries on as through the AC were there all the time. When the magnet has moved through a quarter rev the voltage is now zero but the current is a maximum. That is when the capacitor is switched out and you have lost all the energy that was stored in the capacitor. But there is still energy stored in the inductance of the coil, and that can be recovered. In fact you want to recover it quickly before the magnet has moved far so that the decaying current can't create back torque. I have looked into some math and it appears that the energy you regain from the inductance is equal to the energy you originally put into the capacitor, see paper attached. But you have gained that quarter rev of mechanical energy. So theoretically it looks like a self runner, but there are numerous problems, not least are (a) the resistance of the coil and (b) converting the high voltage quick discharge spike back down to the lower voltage needed to pre-charge the capacitor. However it is nice to obtain a theoretical gain of energy since that can be the start of a process that could lead to a practical machine.
Smudge
Here is a quick sketch showing the sequencing. Sorry for the drip feed but I am publishing as I go along.
Smudge
@Smudge
QuoteHere is a quick sketch showing the sequencing. Sorry for the drip feed but I am publishing as I go along.
I think I see the problem and it relates specifically to the mechanism whereby energy dissipates in the system. When the capacitor current is producing a magnetic field in the coil the moving PM magnetic field is also producing a Cemf limiting the capacitor current in the coil. However this is not the mechanism for dissipation which is due to the fact the PM field has partially saturated the coil field causing it to act more like a resistance rather than an inductance. In effect the coil starts dissipating energy in the resistance of the coil rather than storing it in a magnetic field which could perform physical work.
We could think of the two magnetic fields as separate wheels and the increased magnetic field density between the two equivalent to slippage between the wheels. When the PM field interacts with the coil field some current flows in the coil which does no physical work (slippage) other than dissipating energy as heat instead of causing a field change which could do work.
I took a different approach to solving these problems and rather than design systems I thought might increase efficiency or bend the rules I wanted to understand the specific mechanisms whereby energy dissipates. I understand many simply measure a voltage drop as something lost however this tells us nothing as to why the voltage drop occurred in the first place. Once I understood the fundamental cause of how and why energy dissipates within a system the next step was to understand the alter ego of dissipation which is accumulation. They are very similar in there nature and while dissipation acts outward accumulation acts inward. It seems common sense that it would be very hard to design a system which does not dissipate energy when it is not know why or how energy actually dissipates in the system.
AC
A bucket of water placed on a scale has a weight vector within the field of a fundamental force, gravity.
A bucket of water has a liquid pressure hydrostatic potential difference of 1.5 psi per meter, this is a scalar specific gravity field, energised by the primary vector fundamental force field, gravity.
A bucket of water placed upon another bucket of water will double the weight vector force on the scale, but greatly increase the hydrostatic pressure of the liquid in the bottom bucket.. if the scalar liquid fields are prevented from equalisation..!
What we can learn from this is that there is a primary vector field force (gravity, one of the fundamental forces), and this.. also.. creates a scalar field force equlibrium. We can also demonstrate that a discreet vector force (weight of bucket of water) can hugely energise an existing scalar field and produce a large force increase (hydraulic pressure) while only doubling the primary field force (weight).
When we use the electrical energy generated from the above process to phase change transition liquid to gas we get a massive volume differential which creates a buoyancy change and a resultant force which is supplied by the scalar specific gravity field (which itself is supplied by the primary fundamental force vector gravity field).
This means that the height that the hollow gas filled piston will subsequently travel up the tube will be from work done by a fundamental force seeking to achieve equilibrium within a secondary field (the SGF).
Therefore the height that the piston travels via buoyancy is disconnected from the system energy loop and will ascend forever if allowed for, the energy to do that provided by the specific gravity field. Any increase in height of the liquid water energy reservoirs (a and b which are always equal) becomes > for the input but has zero cost to the output.. from a certain point of view. Therefore COP becomes scalable in the detached variable frame of reference (height dimension, one of the 3 defining space coordinates).
Mass is also involved as is density but that is another conversation for another day. Tired of this these days, have achieved my goal of COP>1 from a fundamental force, happily retired :) I offer the above thoughts in the hope that coming recognition of the replicability of my work will give you faith in the supporting model, and through smart integration of the principles within your own field models progress can be made in the electromagnetic arena. hhop gen 3 also incorporates an alternator that is supplied within the system process loop at a constant COP>1 efficiency therefore reducing Power In to Zero from a user perspective, an interesting place to test your vector scalar field integration theories O0
Electromagnetic four-potential
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_four-potential
Smudge - thank you for the diagrams. Still missing (at least for me) is how to extract/store the energy from the bemf as the coil-field collapses (in the last diagram).
Evo-ape - thank you for your boldness, " Therefore COP becomes scalable in the detached variable frame of reference (height dimension, one of the 3 defining space coordinates).
Mass is also involved as is density but that is another conversation for another day. Tired of this these days, have achieved my goal of COP>1 from a fundamental force, happily retired Smiley I offer the above thoughts in the hope that coming recognition of the replicability of my work will give you faith in the supporting model, and through smart integration of the principles within your own field models progress can be made in the electromagnetic arena. hhop gen 3 also incorporates an alternator that is supplied within the system process loop at a constant COP>1 efficiency therefore reducing Power In to Zero from a user perspective"
But can you be more specific, like diagrams such as Smudge gives? or something specific to replicate?
Certainly your words are intriguing... but puzzling and unfulfilling.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.24, 15:56:58
Here is a quick sketch showing the sequencing. Sorry for the drip feed but I am publishing as I go along.
Smudge
Smudge
The timing diagram is for one quarter cycle. Can we assume the cycle repeats for the other quadrants?
0 degrees equals the start position of your sequencing drawing,
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
OP CL OP CL OP CL OP CL OP
So this will require a four lobed cam on the shaft triggering a mechanical switch.
Or an array of four small magnets on the shaft driving a reed switch or Hall effect device.
Or an optical slotted wheel.
and so on
Quote from: ION on 2015.08.24, 19:41:02
Smudge
The timing diagram is for one quarter cycle. Can we assume the cycle repeats for the other quadrants?
0 degrees equals the start position of your sequencing drawing,
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
OP CL OP CL OP CL OP CL OP
So this will require a four lobed cam on the shaft triggering a mechanical switch.
Or an array of four small magnets on the shaft driving a reed switch or Hall effect device.
Or an optical slotted wheel.
and so on
Not quite but see new additional sequencing attached. Using CL to mean the angle at which switch closure occurs, OP to mean the angle at switch opening occurs and NC to mean no change in switch position, your chart should look like this.
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
CL NC OP NC CL NC OP NC CL
Smudge
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.08.24, 17:59:19
Smudge - thank you for the diagrams. Still missing (at least for me) is how to extract/store the energy from the bemf as the coil-field collapses (in the last diagram).
To get the coil energy to collapse quickly it needs to be resonantly transferred into a small capacitor. Just having that small capacitor connected via a hold-off diode will do it, the peak bemf voltage is held in the capacitor for future use. The problem now is we have high voltage in a small capacitor, whereas we want to get it as lower voltage in a large capacitor, the one we are going to connect to the coil later in the cycle. A possible solution is to do the transfer via a step-down transformer where at the primary the large capacitor across the secondary is seen as that lower value. This can still occur resonantly. Just needs appropriate switching and diodes. I'll try to knock up a circuit. Note that the large capacitor that is connected to the coil at appropriate points in the cycle has to get pre-charged alternately positive and negative. Might need two capacitors alternately used.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.24, 15:56:58
Here is a quick sketch showing the sequencing. Sorry for the drip feed but I am publishing as I go along.
And that rotating gray block in your sketch is a soft ferromagnetic or a hard ferromagnetic (permanent magnet) ? I have to ask because you did not mark any pole designations on the ends of that gray block.
If it is the former, then how is it different from C.A.R.A.?
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.25, 13:21:56
And that rotating gray block in your sketch is a soft ferromagnetic or a hard ferromagnetic (permanent magnet) ? I have to ask because you did not mark any pole designations on the ends of that gray block.
If it is the former, then how is it different from C.A.R.A.?
It's a a PM and the additional sequencing sent a few posts back does identify the different poles.
Smudge
Dear Smudge
I think part of the sequencing misunderstanding is that I took the initial condition of your sequencing diagram to be 0 degrees at 9:00. So that we are all in harmony could you kindly revise your sequencing diagram to show the start or zero degrees position of the magnet. and label each drawing with the degrees of rotation. One end of the magnet should be labelled as the pointing end for the degrees rotation.
ION,
Try this one.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.25, 15:15:39
It's a PM and the additional sequencing sent a few posts back does identify the different poles.
I had to ask since your textual description mentioned a permanent magnet but your diagram seemed not to agree with it because in drawings, that I am used to, a gray slab usually denotes a soft ferrite.
Now it's clear and I can analyze it without worrying that you had something else in mind.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.08.24, 13:19:22
Verpies:
Huh?
I'm trying to follow all this - thanks Smudge for patiently explaining...
Now, is Verpies correct? indeed, what is he saying?
I am saying that if there is no energy gain in the 1
st cycle then there will be no gain in subsequent cycles.
The 1
st cycle can be made equivalent to subsequent cycles when its
initial conditions are the same for the same rotor position.
For example:
1) the rotor at 0º.
2) capacitor charged to some voltage V
3) no current flowing through the winding L
Analysis:
As capacitor is discharged into the winding, electric current flows through the winding and generates magnetic flux. If the PM rotor were immobilized then this current would vary sinusoidally in time due to the self-inducance of the winding and the LC relationship with the capacitor, but since the rotor can move, the magnetic gradient attracts it and it moves/rotates.
The approach of the magnet induces current in the winding that is in opposite direction to the current discharging from the capacitor. These two currents oppose and fight each other thus the current flowing through the winding is not sinusoidal, anymore.
If the winding were unpowered by the capacitor yet shorted, then the approach of the rotor would still induce the same current in this winding and in the same direction as with the powered winding. Also, an unpowered shorted winding repels the rotor while a powered winding attracts the rotor (if the powering current is greater than the induced current).
Some people prefer to call it CEMF.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.24, 16:40:52
When the capacitor current is producing a magnetic field in the coil the moving PM magnetic field is also producing a CEMF limiting the capacitor current in the coil.
Consequently, the ½Li
2 energy stored in the powered winding/coil at TDC (90º) is smaller when the rotor is allowed to approach to it vs. when it is not allowed to approach.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.08.24, 17:59:19
Evo-ape - thank you for your boldness, " Therefore COP becomes scalable in the detached variable frame of reference (height dimension, one of the 3 defining space coordinates).
But can you be more specific, like diagrams such as Smudge gives? or something specific to replicate?
Certainly your words are intriguing... but puzzling and unfulfilling.
Prof, all of the diagrams you need are provided from post #30 in the hhop thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2288.msg49565#msg49565
If we reverse engineer hhop gen 3 we can understand that a hollow piston submerged in a liquid can ascend vertically via the buoyancy force if it is less dense than the surrounding medium (the water). Archimedes principle allows us to quantify the upwards buoyancy force on the piston:
"Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."
— Archimedes of Syracuse
The amount of electrical energy required to displace (pump) a certain amount of water to cancel out the downwards weight force of the piston solid body, and overcome the resistance friction of the seal if using an o ring for example, can be experimentally determined. This is the energy required to return the system to starting conditions and complete one cycle.
This electrical energy is provided by the alternator which is powered by the water wheel which is itself powered by the weight loaded accumulator. The volume of water that is required to run the alternator for the necessary time to provide the exact amount of electrical energy for the electrolysis process can be experimentally determined.
As alternators and water wheels are typically around 90% efficient, and there are other system losses such as slight pressure loss from raising water through a height you would slightly oversize your reservoir to cover your incurred operational losses. At this stage when your electrical energy generated at your alternator (run time) precisely matches the electrical energy required to ascend your piston via the buoyancy force you would have a 1:1 ratio.
It is now critical to understand that if the dimensions and weight of the hollow piston do not change, the amount of electrical energy required to create sufficient density change of the piston body for it to ascend, will not change either. It would continue to ascend as long as it had a liquid medium to travel up within.
This means that should you now decide to double the volume of your reservoirs you will have changed the ratio to 2:1, if you triple the volume 3:1 etc.. however, you can only increase the volume by extending the height dimension of the system, you cannot change the radius (or diameter) or you will change the amount of electrical energy required for electrolysis to create gas displacement pumping, thus changing the "1" in the relationship.
The primary gravitational field provides the force to energise the input side of the system, and the secondary gravitational field (the specific gravity field) is created by the primary field and provides the force to reset the system. User input is zero and therefore hhop gen 3 is classified as an infinite COP device just like a solar panel, but runs 24/7/365.
The energy can only be harvested from the specific gravity field, which is fed by the primary field that generates it, which is why you can scale the energy output available above COP 1 by increasing the height of the water chamber reservoirs.
Some of the things we can learn from this are that a vector field can under specific circumstances create a secondary scalar field. Energy can be extracted from this secondary field and is effectively infinite (gravity is a fundamental force, not a fuel that is consumed). When the primary vector field has used its gravitational potential energy (its weight) it still has the secondary scalar field potential available, which can be energised by another primary vector field (weight).
1 litre of water = 1 Kg = 2.2 lbf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28force%29
The pound-force is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth.
1 lbf = 4.44 Newtons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Weight is a vector whose magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton. For example, an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons on the surface of the Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pounds_per_square_inch
The pound per square inch or, more accurately, pound-force per square inch (abbreviations: psi, lbf/in2, lbf/in2, lbf/sq in, lbf/sq in) is a unit of pressure or of stress based on avoirdupois units. It is the pressure resulting from a force of one pound-force applied to an area of one square inch
lbf = psi only when the liquid piston is 1 inch square (outlet nozzle for turbine), which is approximately 14.3 millimeters diameter, which is the size of a small micro hydro nozzle diameter.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.25, 15:42:15
ION,
Try this one.
Smudge
Thanks Smudge, that clears everything up.
Regards
ION
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.25, 16:16:14
I am saying that if there is no energy gain in the 1st cycle then there will be no gain in subsequent cycles.
But I think you will agree that a PM rotating relative to some permeable material will create mechanical energy gain (during the attractive approach) only for that energy to be lost (during the attractive recede). I am trying to break that reciprocity by creating the effect of the permeable material being present by supplying current to a coil in a manner that exactly simulates that effect for the gain phase, then removing it for that energy claw back phase.
QuoteThe 1st cycle can be made equivalent to subsequent cycles when its initial conditions are the same for the same rotor position.
For example:
1) the rotor at 90º.
2) capacitor charged to some voltage V
3) no current flowing through the winding L
Agreed
QuoteAnalysis:
As capacitor is discharged into the winding, electric current flows through the winding and generates magnetic flux. If the PM rotor were immobilized then this current would vary sinusoidally in time due to the self-inducance of the winding and the LC relationship with the capacitor, but since the rotor can move, the magnetic gradient attracts it and it moves/rotates.
The approach of the magnet induces current in the winding that is in opposite direction to the current discharging from the capacitor. These two currents oppose and fight each other thus the current flowing through the winding is not sinusoidal, anymore.
I disagree. First any two currents that are "fighting" each other and are both sinusoidal, the resulting current as also sinusoidal. Second the moving magnet does not induce current, it induces voltage. (The way Lenz's Law is expressed leads to wrong statements like your "induces current in the winding that is in opposite direction to the current discharging from the capacitor".) To establish the direction of current you have to look at the effect that the induced voltage has on the circuit, and the effect of that induced voltage is not as you state. You do not have two currents fighting each other. You have a capacitor discharging current into an impedance where the voltage is changing sinusoidally, and that leads to that current also being sinusoidal. It is exactly like the capacitor being discharged into an inductor.
QuoteIf the winding were unpowered by the capacitor yet shorted, then the approach of the rotor would still induce the same current in this winding and in the same direction as with the powered winding.
Totally disagree. Again you are fixated on induced
current whereas changing flux induces
voltage. Any current that flows as a result of that voltage has to take account of the load into which that current flows. A short across the coil cannot possibly be considered the same as a pre-charged capacitor. The current cannot possibly be the same for those two cases.
QuoteAlso, an unpowered shorted winding repels the rotor while a powered winding attracts the rotor (if the powering current is greater than the induced current).
That should really be stated as "a powered winding attracts the rotor (if the powering voltage is greater than the induced voltage so as to drive current of the correct polarity). If the powering voltage is smaller than the induced voltage the current flows in a direction to create repulsion, of which the shorted coil is the limiting case of zero applied voltage.
QuoteSome people prefer to call it CEMF.
Consequently, the ½Li2 energy stored in the powered winding/coil at TDC (0º) is smaller when the rotor is allowed to approach to it vs. when it is not allowed to approach.
Well my analysis does not show that, but of course my analysis could be wrong.
To add further to this debate consider this. A magnet without a keeper has energy stored in the external and internal magnetic fields. The external field is in air while the internal field is within the inter atomic space, so also stored in "air". When a keeper is in place the external energy has disappeared. It can be shown that during approach of the keeper there is a flow of magnetic energy from the external air into the internal "air". There is also another flow of energy from the electron dipoles into the internal "air". Those two flows of energy account for the final energy stored internally where the magnet's load line has moved and the B within the magnet has increased. All these flows of energy can be calculated, but they never feature in any analysis of magnetic motors because they do not normally feature in overall power output. But they do feature in that cyclic energy-gain energy-loss situation associated with cogging torques. If you analyse a PM motor that has permeable material in its construction, looking at electrical energy input v. mechanical energy output over small time or angle increments, you will find areas of overunity and underunity. These cancel out over full cycles. The OU areas occur when energy is being extracted form the electron dipoles, the UU areas when it is being clawed back. If we can break that reciprocity we can obtain overall OU.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.25, 15:42:15
ION,
Try this one.
Smudge
In diagram where capacitor is being charged - what force is going to be used for charging? As soon as you close circuit the Lenz force will be there against magnet unless you have clever way to redirect it for doing useful work.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.08.26, 08:44:58
In diagram where capacitor is being charged - what force is going to be used for charging?
The capacitor is being charged while it is disconnected from the coil, so there is no Lenz effect on the charging process. Ideally we want the capacitor to obtain its energy from the bemf spike when the switch is opened so that the ½Li
2 energy stored in the coil gets transferred into the capacitor ready for the next switch closure. But it has to get there in the correct polarity, so it requires some clever circuitry to do that.
QuoteAs soon as you close circuit the Lenz force will be there against magnet unless you have clever way to redirect it for doing useful work.
Not sure what you mean by Lenz force. The capacitor discharging into the coil sends current so that the magnet creates positive torque thus doing useful work.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
But I think you will agree that a PM rotating relative to some permeable material will create mechanical energy gain (during the attractive approach) only for that energy to be lost (during the attractive recede).
Yes
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
I disagree. First any two currents that are "fighting" each other and are both sinusoidal, the resulting current as also sinusoidal.
While you are correct that a sum (or difference) of two sinusoids yields a sinusoid (or zero) regardless of their phase, the induced current is not sinusoidal because the magnetic flux cutting the crossection of the winding does not change sinusoidally in the rotor/pole geometry that you have drawn. So sinusoidal LC current + non-sinusoidal induced current = non-sinusoidal total current.
This is a minor point in our discussion that has no bearing on your operating principle.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
Second the moving magnet does not induce current, it induces voltage.
Voltage is just a potential, in other words "what might be". An inductor is a current device and a real event in it is the current flow. An inductor with voltage across it but without current flowing through it (e.g. an open inductor) is equivalent to nothing. It does nothing, it might as well not be there at all.
So forgive me if I analyze inductors in terms of currents and capacitors in terms of voltages.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
(The way Lenz's Law is expressed leads to wrong statements like your "induces current in the winding that is in opposite direction to the current discharging from the capacitor".)
I also have a problem with the Lenz law, however it is not about the precedence of voltage over current but my objection is that it is a qualitative law and not a quantitative law.
I'd like to have a quantitative Lenz law stating, that the current induced in an ideal shorted inductor generates its own magnetic flux that acts to maintain the total flux penetrating the inductor, at a constant level. Any imperfections of the inductor, such as resistance and self-capacitance are a different story.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
To establish the direction of current you have to look at the effect that the induced voltage has on the circuit, and the effect of that induced voltage is not as you state.
Both the direction and magnitude of the induced current are as I state. This can be seen merely with a CSR and an oscilloscope.
An inductor is a current device and it is the current that generates magnetic flux in it - not voltage.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
You do not have two currents fighting each other.
You do have fighting currents in your device, because the induced current is subtracted from the current delivered by the capacitor.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
You have a capacitor discharging current into an impedance where the voltage is changing sinusoidally, and that leads to that current also being sinusoidal. It is exactly like the capacitor being discharged into an inductor.
Yes, that is the shape of the current flowing in the inductor when it is supplied by voltage from a capacitor. A classic LC behavior. But the induced current is a different story - it is neither sinusoidal (because the flux is not) nor in the same direction as the current delivered from the capacitor.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
Totally disagree. Again you are fixated on induced current whereas changing flux induces voltage.
It is not an accident nor fixation. The cherished concept of induced voltage (Faraday's law) is useless when analyzing the response of an ideal shorted inductor to a changing external flux.
And the proper approach to analysis is to start with ideal components first and add the imperfections later.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
Any current that flows as a result of that voltage has to take account of the load into which that current flows.
Yes, but the concept of current caused by voltage (Ohm's law i=V/R) is not always useful and blindly following it can lead you down the garden path. Analysis of currents induced in inductors, subjected to changing external flux, is a perfect example of this.
Just consider whether the calculation of induced voltage in an ideal shorted inductor, subjected to a changing external flux, leads to any good answers ...if you try, you get i=V/0 from the Ohm's law and no clue to what the induced current in that inductor really is. (...and it is neither infinite nor zero).
I remind you, that only current flowing in the inductor represents the energy stored in the inductor at that moment and only the current produces any measurable effects.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
A short across the coil cannot possibly be considered the same as a pre-charged capacitor. The current cannot possibly be the same for those two cases.
Of course it is not, because capacitor is a voltage device and a coil is a current device. A shorted coil stores energy in the form of current and an open capacitor stores energy in the form of voltage....or internally as magnetic field and electric field, respectively. The behavior of the LC circuit stems from sloshing of the energy between these two forms.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
That should really be stated as "a powered winding attracts the rotor (if the powering voltage is greater than the induced voltage so as to drive current of the correct polarity).
Involving voltage in inductor analysis is unnecessary and leads down a garden path.
I would make the same objection if you were fixated on current in capacitors.
Now I have to write that you are "fixated" on voltage instead what really matters in an inductor - current. Voltage across an ideal shorted inductor cannot even be measured and a shorted inductor is the active inductor.
An open inductor is inactive and it neither stores energy nor builds the magnetic flux, while a shorted inductor - does.
Conversely, a shorted capacitor is inactive and neither stores energy nor builds the electric field, while an open capacitor - does.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
If the powering voltage is smaller than the induced voltage the current flows in a direction to create repulsion, of which the shorted coil is the limiting case of zero applied voltage.
I agree but the same conclusion can be reached just analyzing currents in the inductors.
The capacitor powering an inductor is a variable voltage source and as you probably know, the internal impedance of an ideal voltage source is zero, so the inductor is effectively shorted by zero impedance and and its response to an external changing flux is the same as that of a shorted inductor.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 08:43:55
To add further to this debate consider this. A magnet without a keeper has energy stored in the external and internal magnetic fields. The external field is in air while the internal field is within the inter atomic space, so also stored in "air". When a keeper is in place the external energy has disappeared. It can be shown that during approach of the keeper there is a flow of magnetic energy from the external air into the internal "air". There is also another flow of energy from the electron dipoles into the internal "air". Those two flows of energy account for the final energy stored internally where the magnet's load line has moved and the B within the magnet has increased. All these flows of energy can be calculated, but they never feature in any analysis of magnetic motors because they do not normally feature in overall power output. But they do feature in that cyclic energy-gain energy-loss situation associated with cogging torques. If you analyze a PM motor that has permeable material in its construction, looking at electrical energy input v. mechanical energy output over small time or angle increments, you will find areas of overunity and underunity. These cancel out over full cycles. The OU areas occur when energy is being extracted form the electron dipoles, the UU areas when it is being clawed back. If we can break that reciprocity we can obtain overall OU.
I understand. I also think that there is energy to be had from there.
I just tend to lean towards soft ferromagnetic movers than the hard ones (magnets).
When a soft keeper/rotor is attracted by an active coil, the current circulating in the coil decreases as the ½Li
2 energy stored in that coil is transferred to the keeper/rotor in order to grow and align its ferromagnetic domains. That "domain alignment energy" can be later transferred back into the coil (and then into a capacitor) after the rotor passes TDC (90º in your drawing) in order to prevent back-attraction like in your scheme with the PM.
During the latter transfer, the inductance of the coil with the keeper/rotor in its proximity is much higher compared to when the keeper/rotor was away, however the inductor current is lower.
The circuit to do this recovery is related to the inverting
buck-boost converter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck%E2%80%93boost_converter) and is applicable to your design, too. A synchronous rectification is highly recommended because diode voltage drops V
F eat up the stored energy fast.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 09:32:52
Ideally we want the capacitor to obtain its energy from the bemf spike when the switch is opened so that the ½Li2 energy stored in the coil gets transferred into the capacitor ready for the next switch closure. But it has to get there in the correct polarity, so it requires some clever circuitry to do that.
The circuit to do that connects an empty capacitor to a full coil and allows for ¼ of the natural LC oscillation cycle in order to transfer the ½Li
2 energy stored in this coil (as current) to the capacitor (as voltage). The circuit to do that is related to the inverting buck-boost converter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck%E2%80%93boost_converter).
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 09:32:52
Not sure what you mean by Lenz force. The capacitor discharging into the coil sends current so that the magnet creates positive torque thus doing useful work.
I think he means that the capacitor represents a short to the coil as a voltage source so when the external flux changes the induced current will have a closed path and will occur in the direction dictated by the Lenz's law. That current will create its own own magnetic flux that will generate an opposing force on the approaching rotor.
@verpies
QuoteOf course it is not, because capacitor is a voltage device and a coil is a current device. A shorted coil stores energy in the form of current and an open capacitor stores energy in the form of voltage....or internally as magnetic field and electric field, respectively. The behavior of the LC circuit stems from sloshing of the energy between these two forms.
Everyone is making some very good points. I have moved away from the common analogies concerning inductor currents and capacitor voltages. For instance a capacitor cannot "charge" unless a current of free electrons is flowing into (-) and out of (+) the capacitor. Thus in order to charge a capacitor a voltage (electrical pressure) is required to force a current (movement of charges)... it always takes two to tango.
As well in an inductor there must always be voltage to force a current. In a closed one turn loop we may presume there is no voltage however we know it must be present. The issue is easy to understand if infinite element analysis is used which is all I use. Consider a battery or charged capacitor connected to a coil, we can see the source as a separation of charges and in the coil we see these charges coming together and neutralizing themselves. However in a one turn loop our perceptions confuse the issue because we cannot see a singular source like a battery. In effect an induced one turn loop must produce a charge separation (voltage) in every section of the wire simultaneously and whenever the charges move as a current they must come together and neutralize their separation. To make a meaningful analogy we could say our one turn coil acts like a million small batteries connected in series forming a loop. We cannot measure the voltage because the potential difference causing motion or current is between the free electrons and protons at the atomic scale.
The induced one turn loop is where lumped sum analysis fails miserably because there is no "lump" to sum and the induction process occurs through a near infinite number of elements simultaneously. I understand we lump things together so doing calculations is easier however nature does not do calculations nor does it lump things together and call them something else. All this is very easy to understand however we have to see it for what it is, all matter is an aggregate of billions of smaller parts undergoing forces and moving about. What we call voltage or current is like herding cats and most of the simple equations we use seems quite absurd relative to what is actually happening to these billions of parts.
AC
I have no problem with shorted loops because I can do dynamic analysis in the magnetic domain, something that is sadly lacking in our teachings. You can easily verify that a coil connected to a load resistor appears in the magnetic circuit (where flux is "magnetic current") as a "magnetic inductor" whose value is N2/R. For zero R the "magnetic inducance" goes to infinity hence the flux cannot change value, it remains at the value there when the coil is shorted.
I do have problems with regarding Lenz as always creating current that is of opposite polarity to that applied external flux. A capacitor acting as a short will certainly get induced current opposing the changing flux if there is no previous charge on the capacitor, but it doesn't necessarily do that if there is already voltage on the capacitor at the time of connection. If the capacitor is already charged to the open circuit voltage of the coil then at the point of connection there can be no current flow, so at that instant it is not a short. What now follows depends on whether that open circuit voltage remains constant or not. If the voltage is falling (because the flux rate is reducing) then the capacitor can discharge into the coil. If the voltage is increasing then the opposite is the case, the current is charging the capacitor more. So you can get either polarity of current. Verpies doesn't agree with me on this point.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.26, 16:02:26
I have no problem with shorted loops because I can do dynamic analysis in the magnetic domain, something that is sadly lacking in our teachings. You can easily verify that a coil connected to a load resistor appears in the magnetic circuit (where flux is "magnetic current") as a "magnetic inductor" whose value is N2/R. For zero R the "magnetic inducance" goes to infinity hence the flux cannot change value, it remains at the value there when the coil is shorted.
I do have problems with regarding Lenz as always creating current that is of opposite polarity to that applied external flux. A capacitor acting as a short will certainly get induced current opposing the changing flux if there is no previous charge on the capacitor, but it doesn't necessarily do that if there is already voltage on the capacitor at the time of connection. If the capacitor is already charged to the open circuit voltage of the coil then at the point of connection there can be no current flow, so at that instant it is not a short. What now follows depends on whether that open circuit voltage remains constant or not. If the voltage is falling (because the flux rate is reducing) then the capacitor can discharge into the coil. If the voltage is increasing then the opposite is the case, the current is charging the capacitor more. So you can get either polarity of current. Verpies doesn't agree with me on this point.
Smudge
I think you have clearly explained it in the quote above and I agree.
Please check the optical disk drawing for agreement with your sequencer diagram.
Whether the segments around the disk are cut out or not will depend on how the switching drive is hooked up and if there are inversions.
For a simple drive to a mechanical relay, an open slot equals light passing through equals relay activated, now it is matter of using the normally open or normally close contacts on the relay.
Nice thing about using a small relay would be bidirectional drive and low switch loss, disadvantage would be turn on / turn off delay at higher RPM's (could be offset with timing wheel angle adjustment relative to magnet position) and possible loss of energy in arcing contacts.
A simple low loss FET circuit can also work when made bi directional.
Also a simple bow tie pattern can be cut for an interrupter
It's simpler than you imagined, the relay contacts have to be open or closed over 90 degrees of travel, hence the optical disc shown here.
Smudge
Just to add one more thing to the Lenz debate. With a capacitive load the induced current is related to the rate-of-change of rate-of-change of flux. In other words it involves a second differential. Hence for AC flux the omega squared term in the value of negative reluctance created by the capacitor. The second differential of a sine wave is a negative sine wave, hence the negative reluctance. Lenz's law as written doesn't cover second differential, it only accounts for first differential. I stand by the pictures I put in post #31.
Smudge
@Smudge
QuoteIf the voltage is falling (because the flux rate is reducing) then the capacitor can discharge into the coil. If the voltage is increasing then the opposite is the case, the current is charging the capacitor more. So you can get either polarity of current. Verpies doesn't agree with me on this point.
Ah now I see where your going.
I would have to agree on this point because this exactly how an induction motor/generator works. Higher than grid induced voltage = generator action and lower than grid induced voltage = motor action. I did many experiments in that strange region where induced voltage is equal to grid or line voltage where the motor/generator is neither a motor or a generator. It is very hard for many people not familiar with these concepts to wrap their mind around it.
As well the concept of energy is foreign to many, the fact that the energy in a conductor travels on the surface as a travelling magnetic field moving near the speed of light while the free electrons in the conductor move at a snails pace. It is simply induction, one electron moves which creates a magnetic field which causes other electrons to move and reinforce the field which continues on down the line. This is why inducing one part of a coil induces the whole coil because it is still a piece of wire, it is simply wrapped in circles.
Another aspect is the mysterious disappearing voltage experiment I invented. We produce a separation of charges in a battery by adding electrons to the (-) terminal and taking them away from the (+) terminal. Simple enough, then we attach a resistor to the circuit and the electrons from the negative side of the circuit are resisted just as the positive side is also resisted. If the current is resisted from both the (+) and (-) legs of the circuit then somewhere near the middle of the resistance the charges should meet and become a neutral condition neither negative or positive. So I used a 2 foot length of nichrome wire as my resistance and a 12v battery as a source then measured the charged state at many points along the wire with an electrometer. From the negative side of the nichrome wire termination inward the charged state reduced to zero at the center of the wire just as the positive charged state reduced to zero at the center of the wire from the positive terminal. Thus we must conclude in every resistance the two charged states of (-) and (+) reduce through a gradient to zero at the center of the resistance due to the resistance.
You know I have never heard of anyone ever doing my simple experiment however I proved it through experiment to prove a very simple point. When charges are separated this represents an accumulation of energy. When separated charges are allowed to come together in a circuit element and neutralizing each others condition then this represents the dissipation of energy. Now you know how a resistor works fundamentally, why energy dissipates in it and why there is a voltage drop across it... because the voltage has ceased to exist.
This is why philosophy it is so important, we must first imagine what might be going on in a rational coherent way and then devise a way to prove it. Equations will not give anyone the answers they seek we must find our own answers. Now I must ask did anyone here understand the fundamental mechanism of how and why a simple resistor dissipates energy before I told you?, and if not then why did you not question it?.
Rule #1... question everything.
AC
Regarding the optical shutter, a slot can be cut at the edge of the disk, or just remove material at the edge of the disk. This is easily done with a small router bit and a pivot guide. Not necessary to hollow out the entire disk as this would probably create too much turbulence. I tend to prefer slots as they are less dangerous than sharp edges, except at high speeds.
if the material is thin enough, you can use scissors or tin snips.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.26, 19:29:12
Ah now I see where your going.
AC
Your previous unedited post was pretty good, your finishing sentence something along the lines of "What I don't understand is where is the energy gain coming from" was quite to the point.
From my point of view harnessing an energy gain from a fundamental force model relies on manipulating the secondary scalar field, which is replenished instantly by the primary vector field being the energy source which energises it. I am also manipulating mass and density within my system to create a potential difference in the scalar field, and thus an imbalance.
@evolvingape
QuoteYour previous unedited post was pretty good, your finishing sentence something along the lines of "What I don't understand is where is the energy gain coming from" was quite to the point.
I can't seem to leave well enough alone and spam edit, lol. I agree and at some point there must a clear explanation of how the mechanism for gain works to produce a gain.
QuoteFrom my point of view harnessing an energy gain from a fundamental force model relies on manipulating the secondary scalar field, which is replenished instantly by the primary vector field being the energy source which energises it. I am also manipulating mass and density within my system to create a potential difference in the scalar field, and thus an imbalance.
I would agree and there must be a trick involved which I think may rely on a contradiction between laws or phenomena. For instance if one law states X must happen and another law states Y must then if we force both X and Y to happen in the same instance and they contradict one another then it's just a big old quagmire of contradiction and all bets are off. I think your on the right track and the key word here is "manipulation" in which we force a change in something which may not want to change. At which point our imagination and creativity comes into play to devise a way to bend the rules which may not want to bend. Essentially it comes down to our determination to change ourselves and our way of thinking which translates into our perception of reality. We may have been created equal however from that moment on what we do determines our fate.
Well I better get back to work, 34 C here, no wind and I figured I better let the tractor and myself cool off for a bit... were both getting a little old, lol.
AC
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE, some unwelcome breaking news coming.
While disagreeing with Verpies on the direction of current flowing in this motor, I have just completed a FEMM simulation that reveals all. First off I had to model a spherical magnet (actually a cylinder in the 2D FEMM) in order to get sinusoidal flux. That produced flux so close to sinusoidal that you can't see the difference on the chart of simulated result and calculated result. That's good, it means that I can use the step by step FEMM results and extrapolate them to continuous without introducing error. And the quarter sine-wave rising current from the discharging capacitor creates flux that directly adds to the quarter sine-wave rising flux from the rotating magnet. Of course my FEMM simulation did that because I applied that quarter sine-wave current in synch with the quarter rotation. But I can calculate the value of capacitance for the real situation, and I can also obtain the voltage from the rising flux and that tells me the energy stored in the capacitor at the start. So far so good.
Now the bad bit. The interesting effect is that the rising current from the capacitor which is adding flux in-phase with the rising flux from the magnet (and that is not the two fluxes fighting each other, they really do add in-phase) means that the capacitor thinks it is connected to an inductor of different value to the actual coil inductance, it is greater. In my sim the coil inductance is 1.27uH but the capacitor thinks it is connected to 14.1uH. Of course this effective inductance is linked to the rotation speed, I used 1000rpm. So for the capacitor to discharge all its energy in that quarter cycle movement it has to resonate with that 14.1uH. That turned out to be a huge capacitor as expected, but the voltage needed was quite small because the frequency is so low. Next I discover that the mechanical energy gained from the torque is slightly less that the energy originally stored in the charged capacitor (and eventually lost because the capacitor gets fully discharged over that quarter cycle). But there is still energy stored in the inductance that is to be recovered. If the inductance to be discharged were that higher value things would be good, but it isn't. The inductor can only dicharge its self flux down to the level from the PM that exists at that point, the inductance value for that quick discharge is the basic coil self-inductance value. And the small energy regained exactly made up for the difference between capacitor energy lost and mechanical energy gained. The system is not OU, without any losses it has a COP of unity.
Verpies was almost right when he said "Consequently, the ½Li2 energy stored in the powered winding/coil at TDC (90º) is smaller when the rotor is allowed to approach to it vs. when it is not allowed to approach." If he had said "Consequently, the ½Li2 energy stored in the powered winding/coil at TDC (90º) is smaller than the ½CV2 energy stored in the capacitor at 0º" he would have been spot on. That is where I made my original mistake.
Smudge
Dear Smudge
You are a true scientist willing to double check your own hypothesis and report the negative finding when that occurs. This is very rare in the OU community so hats off to you Sir! O0
All is not lost, your skill at working the FEMM analysis will be very helpful with some other projects here, I'm hoping you can join in.
Meanwhile, it would not hurt to build your device or some variation, as there may be some work around that is possible, that has not yet occurred to anyone.
Keep up the good fight, and keep it coming.
Kindest regards,
ION
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.27, 07:52:11
The inductor can only dicharge its self flux down to the level from the PM that exists at that point,
However, the inductor can discharge the total flux penetrating it, almost down to zero, when a
soft ferromagnetic is used instead of the PM....because the soft ferromagnetic's flux joins with the inductor's flux and becomes accessible to it.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.27, 07:52:11
the inductance value for that quick discharge is the basic coil self-inductance value.
..and with a soft ferromagnetic keeper/rotor, the self-inductance at TDC (90º) is much higher.
@Smudge
QuoteThe inductor can only dicharge its self flux down to the level from the PM that exists at that point, the inductance value for that quick discharge is the basic coil self-inductance value.
I think you explained everything about as well as it can be explained in my opinion. The PM field saturates the inductor to a certain value proportional to the PM position which translates directly to the work it can perform. Also, the inductor can never fully discharge because the PM field is still present thus the work component is always proportional to the difference between the inductor field and the PM field.
At this point we must be very specific... where exactly did the input energy go?. We produced an inductor field of X acting on the PM field of Y and we are left with X minus Y. I think you will find in attraction or repulsion mode the field change which performs work always translates back to the coil as an increase in field density which saturates the inductor causing it to dissipate energy as heat. This is the fundamental reason why the input is proportional to the output in most machines. Now that we know the nature of the problem all we have to do is find a way to change this relationship to ensure it doesn't happen.
AC
@AC
I don't like your use of the the word "saturate" since that implies we have material that can saturate in the usual sense of the word. There is no such material there. As regards where did the input energy go, it appeared as torque doing work and therefore created output energy. Most of it that is. The remainder was left behind as inductive energy that could be recovered. The overall COP was unity. I did not model losses so there was no energy dissipation via that route.
Smudge
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.27, 14:38:26
However, the inductor can discharge the total flux penetrating it, almost down to zero, when a soft ferromagnetic is used instead of the PM....because the soft ferromagnetic's flux joins with the inductor's flux and becomes accessible to it.
..and with a soft ferromagnetic keeper/rotor, the self-inductance at TDC (90º) is much higher.
Good points, I'll do an FEMM simulation using an electromagnet in place of the PM, then at 90 degrees discharge both the drive coil and the magnet coil and see how the energies pan out.
For anyone interested in the FEMM simulation already done here are some details. (Note this was not meant to be a practical motor, it was just something to explore the workings of the device) Image of the magnet, coil and flux pattern shown below, the magnet at 0 degrees. The thin rectangles either side of the magnet are the coil. Magnet diameter 20mm and the FEMM depth was 25mm. Coil was 10 turns and I used 100 amps as the final current so used a sine wave rising from 0 degrees to reach 100 amps at 90 degrees. Then at any point the ratio of flux to current was the apparent inductance (all linear here so no need to use incremental values).
Other data:
Apparent inductance 14.12uH
Rotation rate 1000rpm, frequency = 16.67 Hz, omega = 104.72 rad/S
Capacitor 6.459 F
Capacitor charged to 0.1479 V
Capacitor energy 0.0706 J
Energy delivered to shaft 0.0638 J
Flux at 90 degrees with 100 A current -0.001412
Flux at 90 degrees with no current -0.001285
Inductance of coil 1.27uH
Energy recovered from coil 0.00637 J
COP = 0.9935
Waveforms below for the flux, the torque and the power flows
Smudge
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.26, 23:36:27
@evolvingape
I can't seem to leave well enough alone and spam edit, lol. I agree and at some point there must a clear explanation of how the mechanism for gain works to produce a gain.
I would agree and there must be a trick involved which I think may rely on a contradiction between laws or phenomena. For instance if one law states X must happen and another law states Y must then if we force both X and Y to happen in the same instance and they contradict one another then it's just a big old quagmire of contradiction and all bets are off. I think your on the right track and the key word here is "manipulation" in which we force a change in something which may not want to change. At which point our imagination and creativity comes into play to devise a way to bend the rules which may not want to bend. Essentially it comes down to our determination to change ourselves and our way of thinking which translates into our perception of reality. We may have been created equal however from that moment on what we do determines our fate.
Well I better get back to work, 34 C here, no wind and I figured I better let the tractor and myself cool off for a bit... were both getting a little old, lol.
AC
No trick, just correct integration of existing laws to produce a potential imbalance within multiple frames of reference.
Gravity has an axial vector straight down relative to us. The density of the fluid layers determines it's specific gravity and therefore order within the axial system.
Within the liquid layer there is a quantifiable hydrostatic pressure differential relationship within the scalar vertical axis.
Put that liquid in a bucket (encase it in a solid) and it has a weight vector and a scalar pressure differential.
Put one of those buckets on top of another of those buckets, and seal.. you have a weight vector active, a hydrostatic pressure differential inactive.. along for the ride down.
When the vector force has done work through equalisation, it has reached bottom of system travel. The scalar hydrostatic pressure field (the specific gravity field) potential is available and can be pressurised (compressed) by a vector force (hydraulic ram principle). If your weight ram is a liquid utilising the weight force vector only hydrostatic pressure equalisation_must_not_be_allowed_to_occur.. or you lose your significant compression differential.
The outcome of all this is that you can move liquid through a vertical height incurring losses, but reducing power rate over a period of time and restore your gravitational potential of the pumped liquid back into the reservoir. The liquid pumped through a water wheel and alternator can produce electricity.
The losses for water wheel and alternator are well studied and both around 90% efficient.
The electricity is capable of operating in both the vector and scalar fields, it is the energy conversion bridge.
By having the COP<1 frame of reference produce electricity as its system output I can input that electricity just past TDC 180 degrees and create a gas (with massive volume differential capable of doing work), that is operating in the scalar COP>1 frame of reference.
The system vertical prime vector axis is where the link between COP<1 and COP>1 is made, using electricity as the communication bridge.
@evolvingape
The problem I see is that even if your proposition worked and even if you gave it all away. The moment a purely electrical machine with moving parts or not came to be it would be render a water based gravity machine pointless. As such I have absolutely no interest in them because even if they did work they would soon be obsolete. Gears and pumps and rotating things or floats is the past.... a device making no sound with no moving parts generating tangible power is the future. I am bound to the future not the past.
AC
@Smudge
QuoteI don't like your use of the the word "saturate" since that implies we have material that can saturate in the usual sense of the word. There is no such material there.
You have the wrong perspective in my opinion because it is too confined. I see things in an absolute sense and use infinite element analysis which is like saying you see the Earth through a telescope as a simple object while I see it through a microscope for what it is. There is material there because a field can only act on another field and in this case the field change acts on the material of the coil causing an increase in current. How else could it act on the coil?.
QuoteAs regards where did the input energy go, it appeared as torque doing work and therefore created output energy. Most of it that is.
The problem I see is you have jumped from an input of moving electrons which carry a field with them to torque on a shaft without including the exact nature of all the steps in between. Sure it appeared as torque however what discrete steps were involved in between?, How, where and why does the process ensure energy is conserved?. The devil is in the details you seem to be just skipping over in broad strokes.
QuoteThe remainder was left behind as inductive energy that could be recovered. The overall COP was unity. I did not model losses so there was no energy dissipation via that route.
Again your using terms to describe things which don't actually describe anything. For instance how can inductive energy just be left behind?. I mean what is inductance exactly?, what is the nature of inductance?, where was it, where was it going, what was it doing and how in gods name could it be left behind?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 03:57:33
There is material there because a field can only act on another field and in this case the field change acts on the material of the coil causing an increase in current.
Yes, the coil is a material object, however the magnetic flux does not even need to touch its windings in order to induce current in it.
Smudge's objection to the phrase "The PM field saturates the inductor" is valid because the PM's magnetic field has nothing to saturate in an air-coil.
The most a moving PM could do to an air-coil ...is melt it, but that would be only the result of this coil's imperfections - not its inherent behavior.
An ideal air-coil does not have resistance nor hysteresis loss and does not heat up. Anyway, heating is not saturation.
Also, the level of flux alone from the PM is not responsible for the induced current in an active coil. Only the change in flux (ΔΦ) is responsible for that. The rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) does
not affect the magnitude of the induced current in an ideal active inductor, either.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 03:57:33
How else could it act on the coil?.
If you want to understand mechanistically how a magnetic flux can affect a coil without even touching its windings, you'd need to understand what matter is, as well as the intervening Euclidean space and the magnetic flux....and the effect of their temporal interactions on perceived relations in space.
For engineering purposes, it is just enough to know how they behave.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 03:57:33
For instance how can inductive energy just be left behind?
In a coil the energy is stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current) and in a capacitor the energy is stored as electric field (manifesting as voltage).
Both are energy storage devices and if you put energy into them, it stays there and in case of the inductor it is left behind as circulating current.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 03:57:33
I mean what is inductance exactly?, what is the nature of inductance?
It's a ratio of magnetic flux to current.
If the precise descriptions of their behaviors for engineering purposes, is not enough for you, and you want mechanistic answers to these fundamental physical questions, then study
this (http://rs2theory.org/books/rs2/Introduction.html) - it contains the answers you seek.
@verpies
QuoteSmudge's objection to the phrase "The PM field saturates the inductor" is valid because the PM's magnetic field has nothing to saturate in an air-coil.
Therein lies the problem doesn't it and this strange concept of "nothing" always seems to appear as if my magic. A field does not need something to exist other than a volume of space but there is nothing there is there, lol?.
QuoteIn a coil the energy is stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current) and in a capacitor the energy is stored as electric field (manifesting as voltage).
I guess the obvious question is what causes the "energy stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current)" to manifest a current?. Why it was the Emf induced in the coil by the magnetic field which caused the current in the coil. The same Emf in the capacitor which caused the current to flow... so how are they any different?. Why would we say one manifests as current and the other manifests as voltage when we know as a fact in every case the Emf (voltage) is always the cause of the current?.
QuoteIt's a ratio of magnetic flux to current.
So inductance is the ratio of magnetic flux to current?.
Here is the standard definition:
Inductance is the property of an electrical conductor by which a change in current flowing through it induces an electromotive force in both the conductor itself and in any nearby conductors by mutual inductance.
So if we wanted to describe Inductance in plain english that actually makes sense that people might actually understand we might say... Inductance is what happens when a change in the motion of charges produces a changing magnetic field which then produces a force on other nearby charges.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 19:56:39
@verpies Therein lies the problem doesn't it and this strange concept of "nothing" always seems to appear as if by magic.
If you took the time to study the material from that link that I had provided in my last message, it would not seem magical to you.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 19:56:39
A field does not need something to exist other than a volume of space but there is nothing there is there, lol?.
All of this elucidated in the aforementioned link. Our Euclidean space is a reference system created by the motion of gravitating matter. It is not an aquarium that we all swim in... Even what appears to us as nothing is composed of discrete units of time associated with discrete units of space in 1:1 ratio that we commonly know as the speed of light (c). Any deviation from that 1:1 ratio constitutes observable phenomena like force fields and even atoms.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 19:56:39
I guess the obvious question is what causes the "energy stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current)" to manifest a current?.
Electric current is a 1D motion which cancels the 3D inward motion of gravitating matter and leaves a 2D deviation. This 2D deviation is the magnetic field.
FYI: 1D deviation results in electric phenomena and 3D deviation results in gravitational phenomena.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 19:56:39
So inductance is the ratio of magnetic flux to current?.
Yes, and more precisely: inductance is the ratio of magnetic flux to ampturns ...and there are many other, equally true definitions, too. My favorite one is L = t
3/s
3 , see
here (https://web.archive.org/web/20150523055058/http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp) for more units.
I know, that going to the roots is very interesting and all, but this is not a right place to discuss fundamental physics. This is an engineering forum geared towards construction of FE devices and this thread is about Smudge's device and its variations.
If you really want to discuss the fundamentals of the universe then register on
this forum (http://forum.rs2theory.org/) and post your questions there to a user named bperet and even to me, if you want.
...just not here.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.28, 19:56:39
Why would we say one manifests as current and the other manifests as voltage when we know as a fact in every case the Emf (voltage) is always the cause of the current?
And that cause and effect is expressed by the Ohm's law as: i=V/R or i=ℰ/R
But that law, and the causality it represents, does not work for closed superconductive loops, since
any voltage over a zero resistance would result in infinite current, yet currents in closed superconductive loops, that are subjected to varying flux, are neither infinite nor zero... they are somewhere in between.
Another way to cause electric current is to mechanically move charges (e.g. on a spinning charged dielectric disk, like described
here (https://web.archive.org/web/20130120015546/http://blazelabs.com/e-exp10.asp)). Mind you - charge is not the same as voltage or emf (ξ).
So there goes your immutable observation that current is always caused by voltage.
Also, the reciprocal is not always true - voltage is not always caused by current.
@verpies
QuoteAnother way to cause electric current is to mechanically move charges (e.g. on a spinning charged dielectric disk, like described here). Mind you - charge is not the same as voltage or emf (ξ).
So there goes your immutable observation that current is always caused by voltage.
I hate to always be the one to state the obvious but when charges are acted on "mechanically" this is a field on field operation so yes there is an Emf present. How else could the charge move if not through a force acting on it's field?.
QuoteAll of this elucidated in the aforementioned link. Our Euclidean space is a reference system created by the motion of gravitating matter. It is not an aquarium that we all swim in... Even what appears to us as nothing is composed of discrete units of time associated with discrete units of space in 1:1 ratio that we commonly know as the speed of light (c). Any deviation from that 1:1 ratio constitutes observable phenomena like force fields and even atoms.
Down, down the rabbit hole we go.
I read some of the link a while back and found it to be more nonsensical gobble-de-gook not unlike that most have bought into. It's simply a different flavor of delusional in my opinion and I reject it.
Back on topic... if a current from the capacitor generates a magnetic field which acts on another PM magnetic field then there must be two fields present. In order for one field to act on the other a force must be present somewhere which translates through the fields to the PM. Simple enough because the PM moved and a change in motion requires a force to cause the change in motion. Therefore it seems obvious to me that when the two fields interact there must be more magnetic field present because we have already declared there are two fields interacting with one another. Again, simple enough and if there is more magnetic field present and interacting the absolute field density must have increased translating back to the source saturating the coil causing it to dissipate energy as heat. As it turns out this dissipation of energy in the coil corresponds to the work performed by the PM.
This substantiates the conservation of energy in this case however it does not prove this must always happen in every case if the variables have changed in some fundamental way. We need to change the variables to change the result, that's the way it works.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.29, 16:12:11
Back on topic... if a current from the capacitor generates a magnetic field which acts on another PM magnetic field then there must be two fields present. In order for one field to act on the other a force must be present somewhere which translates through the fields to the PM. Simple enough because the PM moved and a change in motion requires a force to cause the change in motion. Therefore it seems obvious to me that when the two fields interact there must be more magnetic field present because we have already declared there are two fields interacting with one another. Again, simple enough and if there is more magnetic field present and interacting the absolute field density must have increased translating back to the source saturating the coil causing it to dissipate energy as heat. As it turns out this dissipation of energy in the coil corresponds to the work performed by the PM.
Really? So in any PM motor the work performed is accompanied by an equivalent amount of heat dissipation in the coils? So those new fangled PM motors that are >90% efficient are a figment of our imagination? Pull the other one!
Smudge
@Smudge
QuoteReally? So in any PM motor the work performed is accompanied by an equivalent amount of heat dissipation in the coils? So those new fangled PM motors that are >90% efficient are a figment of our imagination? Pull the other one!
No what I meant to say is I have no idea what in the hell I'm talking about, lol. Although I was up very late last night having a few beer with the boys and it was a little foggy this morning. You are correct and only the losses dissipate as heat in the system.
This thread is just big old bundle of illogical fallacies but sooner or later we might sort it all out.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.27, 23:35:19
@evolvingape
The problem I see is that even if your proposition worked and even if you gave it all away. The moment a purely electrical machine with moving parts or not came to be it would be render a water based gravity machine pointless. As such I have absolutely no interest in them because even if they did work they would soon be obsolete. Gears and pumps and rotating things or floats is the past.... a device making no sound with no moving parts generating tangible power is the future. I am bound to the future not the past.
AC
My proposition does work hence the lack of refutation from the community to my historical proofs. I have given it all away, of course i could enhance it but the job is done and any additional work done simply speeds manifestation but does not impact momental magnitude. The technology I redefine is centuries, if not millennia old. An electromagnetic alternator in my system would drop the efficiency of that energy process to 60% instead of 90% with neodymiums. I can accommodate this through my manipulation of the fundamental primary vector force in the COP>1 half cycle. Your future fantasy of a magic black box is just that, a fantasy.. my hhop gen 3 is here now in the present, supported in every instance by past laws :)
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.08.27, 07:52:11
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE, some unwelcome breaking news coming.
The system is not OU, without any losses it has a COP of unity.
Smudge
Smudge has realised that half a cycle is always unity at best. Half cycle output (electricity) can be injected into system 180 out of phase for system reset. Negative primary vector for a scalar body becomes a free variable within the system input hence COP<1 first 50% duty cycle.. COP>1 second 50% duty cycle [system].. Negative primary vector is a scalar input via the specific gravity field and the energy for which is provided by the primary fundamental vector force field (gravity).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c1
I am currently attempting to integrate RS2 into SGF, hence my silence on the matter.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.08.29, 21:50:15
I am currently attempting to integrate RS2 into SGF, hence my silence on the matter.
At least you are reading it to the end - not just some of it.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.29, 16:12:11
@verpies
I hate to always be the one to state the obvious but when charges are acted on "mechanically" this is a field on field operation so yes there is an Emf present.
So you have to decide whether such a thing as a "mechanical field" exists at all and if emf and this "mechanical field" are equivalent.
While you are at it, you might want to try to answer what a field is, too.
@verpies
QuoteSo you have to decide whether such a thing as a "mechanical field" exists at all and if emf and this "mechanical field" are equivalent.
While you are at it, you might want to try to answer what a field is, too.
Been there don that.
What I meant to say in my prior offbeat post was that a motor coil should be treated as an inductor because it is an inductor. As such like any inductor we should get back the energy we put in minus losses. However when the PM field is present saturating the inductor we do not get back what we put in and the PM field causes an increase in current proportional to the work performed.
However if the inductor magnetic field could be retained in the core somehow outside of the context of the applied current then the work performed would not be proportional to the input. If the coil core magnetic field was retained on attraction or expelled when the PM was leaving the core then the work performed could not be proportional to the input.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.30, 05:10:22
@verpies
Been there don that.
...and what did you conclude a "field" is?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.30, 05:10:22
However when the PM field is present saturating the inductor we do not get back what we put in...
What is the PM's field saturating in that air-core inductor?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.30, 05:10:22
However if the inductor magnetic field could be retained in the core somehow outside of the context of the applied current then the work performed would not be proportional to the input. If the coil core magnetic field was retained on attraction or expelled when the PM was leaving the core then the work performed could not be proportional to the input.
AC
If that is all you wish to achieve,then you simply need to use an alnico magnet for the core,as the field in an alnico magnet can be flipped very easily. Your core's field will now remain until you apply a current in the opposite direction,and then it will once again flip the fields poles around.
@Tinman
QuoteIf that is all you wish to achieve,then you simply need to use an alnico magnet for the core,as the field in an alnico magnet can be flipped very easily. Your core's field will now remain until you apply a current in the opposite direction,and then it will once again flip the fields poles around.
I wish it were that easy and if we are flipping an existing PM magnetic field with the applied field from a coil then the PM field is still saturating the coil field. Thus it requires energy to first neutralize the PM field then more energy to change the orientation of the magnetic domains to an opposite sense and if the alnico coil core is acting on another PM or core that force is also resisting the change in magnetic polarity.
The only way around this scenario I can conceive is if the magnetic field could be turned on and off like a switch outside the context of the forces applied from an external field. Imagine a strong magnet on our rotor which is attracted to an iron stator core. The rotor magnet is speeding towards the iron core and then just before the two align we strike the top of the iron core with a hammer scattering the domains expelling the magnetic field from the core and the magnet simply glides past the core. Obviously we don't want to use a hammer however this is the effect we would want.
We cannot repel or attract another magnetic field because that is what we do in all our machines and we know it does not work towards our goal. We are simply trying to replace one field with another. However expelling all magnetic fields from a core is a whole different animal and so far as I can tell the same rules no not apply.
AC
I think AC must have a different definition of magnetic saturation than verpies, judging from AC's last post.
IMO, AC has thus far neglected to answer the two questions posed by verpies (in post #85)
@Ion
QuoteI think AC must have a different definition of magnetic saturation than verpies, judging from AC's last post.
IMO, AC has thus far neglected to answer the two questions posed by verpies (in post #85)
Good observation and yes I was ignoring verpies post #85 because it is pointless. Yes, I may have a different perspective of saturation... so what?. However I'm not willing to derail this thread by starting a pissing contest with him or you over semantics.
As far as "the Field" is concerned I mentioned my opinion of what it is in other threads and if you want to try to find it then be my guest.
The thing to keep in mind is what we know, people like to argue semantics more so that concepts to make their point which seldom has a point. We always end up right back at square one with no progress... so why do it?.
At which point I would like to point out what seems obvious to me. We all may think were experts in our mind however the fact remains that almost none can agree on exactly what happens when a capacitor discharges into a coil of wire in the presence of a PM. I find that kind of comical that with all the problems we face none can seem to even agree on what happens when three basic components are arranged in a very simple and know way. As such if anyone here was an actual expert then obviously we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
So yes let's stick to the basic problem at hand and what we think is happening and why...on topic.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.30, 15:51:19
The only way around this scenario I can conceive is if the magnetic field could be turned on and off like a switch outside the context of the forces applied from an external field. Imagine a strong magnet on our rotor which is attracted to an iron stator core. The rotor magnet is speeding towards the iron core and then just before the two align we strike the top of the iron core with a hammer scattering the domains expelling the magnetic field from the core and the magnet simply glides past the core. Obviously we don't want to use a hammer however this is the effect we would want.
I've seen patents where this is achieved by taking the Fe material above the Curie point. Not very practical. Maybe a microwave pulse could do it something like NMR.
Smudge
AC,
How could two scientists possibly discuss, learn from one another, and co-develop anything if they are not using the same agreed upon terminology? It IS important.
I think the "saturation" you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is regarding the time constant of the coil (after 5 tau), whereas the more common use of the term "saturation" refers to the magnetics in a cored inductor.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.08.30, 18:27:32
I think the "saturation" you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is regarding the time constant of the coil (after 5 tau), whereas the more common use of the term "saturation" refers to the magnetics in a cored inductor.
We can only guess what he means by "saturation" but I don't think it is related to the L/R constant (tau) because the differential permeability of a permanent magnet (PM) is almost the same as air and as such a PM is not capable to increase the inductance (L) of an air-coil by its proximity, ...nor R. Only soft-ferromagnetics can do that.
P.S.
The proximity of conductive PMs, such as NdFeB can decrease the inductance of an air-coil by induced eddy currents. Non-conductive magnets, e.g. ceramic, cannot do that either way.
@Poynt99
QuoteHow could two scientists possibly discuss, learn from one another, and co-develop anything if they are not using the same agreed upon terminology? It IS important.
I think the "saturation" you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is regarding the time constant of the coil (after 5 tau), whereas the more common use of the term "saturation" refers to the magnetics in a cored inductor.
I would be the first to agree, however anyone can read a book but reading a book in no way implies one could write one. As such I tend to stretch the limitations of terms and twist the meaning of my own presumptions to gain a different perspective. How can we hope to succeed if were all reading from the same book with the same ending?. I do not intend to read about others past so much as I intend to write a new chapter in my own future... a better one. Think about it... great men do not hold the status quo they rise above it and create an new one and so must we.
For instance if one PM in series with another PM in attraction has it's flux acting through the other and if the same flux from one PM has it's flux acting through an iron core inducing a magnetic field in the core producing a second field then the phenomena has similarities. Now we take a coil with no core which produces a magnetic field and we can assume the same phenomena may apply in a slightly different way. That is the PM field saturates a region of space like water saturates a sponge and the only difference between a PM, an iron core and and the empty space in an air coil is the extent of the interaction in the context of the field.
As such I see no reason to confine the meaning of saturation to an iron core and I see it in an absolute more universal sense. The PM field will saturate a "space" like water saturates a sponge no matter which form of matter is present or supposedly none. Why would we confine our perceptions when we know this constriction limits our ability to move beyond them?. From a psychological perspective it makes no sense to me because we have created impassible walls we cannot move beyond yet that is our goal here is it not?.
In any case I am a creative Engineer and I really do not care how the problem is solved only that it is. It is that old farm boy mentality in me which rejects all those other engineers sitting around with their hands in their pockets saying it cannot be done while I am in the process of doing it which drives me forward. They have no say in what I do or think because what I do is my own. On my gravestone I hope it will read... he was the guy who got shit done because if we cannot invoke real change then we have done nothing.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.30, 20:33:25
As such I see no reason to confine the meaning of saturation to an iron core and I see it in an absolute more universal sense. The PM field will saturate a "space" like water saturates a sponge no matter which form of matter is present or supposedly none.
The definition of the "saturation" concept contains a limit, such as the limit of water that a sponge can hold or degree of magnetization an iron core can support.
However no such limit of magnetic field can be perceived in space - therefore saturation of space by magnetic field is not an observable idea.
Until it becomes such, it remains an unverified proposition, at best.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.08.30, 20:33:25
Why would we confine our perceptions when we know this constriction limits our ability to move beyond them?.
Scientists do not confine their perceptions. In fact scientists go to great lengths and expenses to extend our perceptions with mmeters, scopes, hall sensors, GMR sensors, etc...
Logical reasoning and correlation with the great body of empirical evidence to date, further extends the conclusions stemming from these perceptions.
@verpies
QuoteThe definition of the "saturation" concept contains a limit, such as the limit of water that a sponge can hold or degree of magnetization an iron core can support.
However no such limit of magnetic field can be perceived in space - therefore saturation of space by magnetic field is not an observable idea.
Until it becomes such, it remains an unverified proposition, at best.
Most everything concerning a field is unverified or ambiguous to some extent. Why does it form an external gradient and not just stay inside the magnet or core?. There must be a reason the field forms an external gradient and then there is the fact a force has translated through an empty space... our spooky action at a distance. I understand everyone has theories concerning the nature of the field however to date we have no irrefutable answers.
In any case I like the term saturation or maybe partial saturation. It implies the perspective that space has structure or an underlying frame work, our sponge. The other option is to assume something might act through nothing which seems a little woo woo in my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying the way I use terminology and the way I perceive things are different for a reason. I mean if your supposedly right about everything and know everything but cannot succeed at building a FE device then why would I try to be just like you?. Do you want both of us to fail?, lol, it's okay to be different and I hope I am.
AC
I have some empathy towards AC with his perceptions of space and fields. My space is filled with a vast number-density of particles (like neutrinos) that whiz through it at light velocity and these are responsible for what we perceive as fields. Stable matter particles continuously absorb and emit these space particles on a one in one out basis. Although the space particles have zero rest-mass they do have momentum, and it is the geometric unbalance of that continuously absorbed and emitted momentum that we see as a force on the matter particle. The space particles have spin and it is the angle of that spin relative to the arrival direction that determines how the matter particle emits its next one and that creates the geometric unbalance in absorption v. emission. What we describe as a field around some matter (like a PM) is really a combination of
(a) those space particles arriving from all directions at our measurement point that have a random distribution of their spin relative to their arrival direction, and their resultant interaction with our test particle that creates random jjitter or uncertainty of position.
(b) plus those emitted from the matter particles inside the PM that have altered the otherwise otherwise random spin distribution of some of the space particles arriving at our test particle. Their arrival does not create random jjitter or uncertainty, but creates the effect that makes us think there is a force field present.
Because our PM only absorbs and emits a tiny portion of incident space particles (most of them simply travel through the inter-atomic space) it is impossible for our PM to create any form of space "saturation". I would prefer to use the term "modification". Others would use the term "warped space" or "warped space-time".
Smudge
At least Smudge is attempting to define what a "field" is. Most importantly he directly states that it is a field of forces (a force field) and that it is caused by emission and bombardment by some particles and that these particles can penetrate the nuclear matter most of the time.
FYI: This point of view is very similar to Miles Mathis' where these particles are channeled by the nuclei in very specific ways.
IMO: This Mathis-like model explains reality much better than legacy science with their virtual photons and other BS but when you get down to what these bombarding and matter penetrating particles are composed of, then RST and RS2 lies at the root of it all anyway.
This is something AC has rejected offhand despite not reading it till the end and because most likely his mind was unable to let go of the conceptually limiting s3/t1 paradigm, while missing the entire array of temporal interactions manifesting themselves in space as forces.
And if Smudge proposes the "modification of space" in lieu of "saturation of space" then he must realize that his proposition endows space with other properties than that of a mere reference system.
In the end, my objection to the saturation of space in an air-coil, stands. There no evidence of that happening and there is no manifestation of the limit to that saturation and saturation without a limit is not a saturation at all.
AC cannot just use known words with altered or undefined meanings when talking to anyone but himself.
@Smudge
That seems like a pretty reasonable well thought out theory versus the time/space nonsense where matter and energy are controlled by math and words. I won't go into my tedious theories here however they rely on the fact there is seldom a single right answer or "silver bullet". Psychologically we like to point our finger at one thing and say that is the cause however in nature this is seldom the case. There could be hundreds of variables leading to one cause which in itself leads to many different effects on many different levels. I think it helps to apply critical thinking and analyse our own thought process in regards to what we think may be happening. That is we may all believe in similar answers not because they are more true but simply because we all think alike and have a similar perspective. Following the thought that just because more people believe something does not make it more true... it means more people believe it. In any case I would tend to agree with your thoughts and theories.
@verpies
QuoteAC cannot just use known words with altered or undefined meanings when talking to anyone but himself.
LOL, of course I can and I find it very strange that you would take it upon yourself to presume I cannot. This isn't the dark ages verpies and not you nor anyone else may dictate what I think or why.
On another note this seems to be a sign of the times and many people have come to believe that just because they assert something it must somehow in their strange little world be true simply because they have asserted it.
AC
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.30, 20:50:24
Scientists do not confine their perceptions. In fact scientists go to great lengths and expenses to extend our perceptions with mmeters, scopes, hall sensors, GMR sensors, etc...
Logical reasoning and correlation with the great body of empirical evidence to date, further extends the conclusions stemming from these perceptions.
Maybe good to keep one little thing floating in our minds. All these perceptions and supporting instrumentation may have something static or stable being carried along, something we presume to be fixed and unchanging or quite possibly non-existent. The reality may be as such this something doesn't have to be fixed. It may be that this something can be altered and controlled, but first we have to identify what it is and how to manipulate it. Once we do, a whole new door is blown open. Things we previously thought to be impossible, may not only become possible, but be rather easy.
If we find ourselves having to think outside the box, what we really need is a bigger box.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.09.01, 09:07:04
Maybe good to keep one little thing floating in our minds. All these perceptions and supporting instrumentation may have something static or stable being carried along, something we presume to be fixed and unchanging or quite possibly non-existent. The reality may be as such this something doesn't have to be fixed.
IMO opinion the static s
3/t
1 paradigm that everyone seems to be stuck in is the biggest presumption of all.
Words like "field" and "energy" are crutches or abstract concepts at best, that we successfully use for engineering without real conceptual understanding. Smudges idea about forces arising from bombardment by some ponderable particles is much better than the legacy science virtual photon BS, but he still cannot answer what those particles are composed of, why they are ponderable and why nuclei channel them as they do.
Solving that conundrum has been done well only by RST and RS2 and that's why I consider that a unique system of theory among the others (...and I read them all). It requires the abandonment of several ingrained presumptions, just as you wrote, and rigid minds have a hard time letting go of some of them - especially the s
3/t
1 paradigm and the need for an "object" to create motion. Those notions are so alien to us that they create the impression of "gobble-de-gook" and "space /time nonsense" despite that nobody in their right mind denies the existence of space and time. Expressing all phenomena in S/T units (such as in
this table (https://web.archive.org/web/20150523055058/http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp)) would not even be possible if these units were nonsensical apples & oranges.
Nature can be as simple that it makes you laugh - the unpenetrable complexity is not a requirement.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.09.01, 09:59:44
Expressing all phenomena in S/T units (such as in this table (https://web.archive.org/web/20150523055058/http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp)) would not even be possible if these units were nonsensical apples & oranges.
A good quote and summary visualization:
Quote from: Xavier Borg
The table below shows the result after crossing each box of each known physical parameter from the table above. This table actually shows us where our scientific knowledge stands, counting the checked boxes one gets only about 15% of the whole table, which took humanity a few millions of years to find out. Once we will be able to fill up the complete table, we would know how to inter-relate all dimensions of our unified universe. Up to that day, no student (or lecturer) can ever think that the existing explanations of science are final and that after reading all his textbooks or finishing his course of study, he should go away satisfied with his wisdom !
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.29, 23:36:02
At least you are reading it to the end - not just some of it.
I should clarify my position. hhop was my retirement project, note the past tense, hhop is finalised and I am retired. When I say I am integrating RS2 into SGF I am saying that I find RS2 interesting but I do not need it to complete my goal, which is completed.
Personally, attempting to understand the fundamental forces has been integral to my mechanical builds, I would never even consider excluding this approach as that road leads to isolated failure imo.