OK ladies and gentlemen. I see a lot of talk about how capacitors, inductors, batteries, generators, and motors work.
How does a magnetic field induce a current , and vice versa?
What is a current?
Why does a current have a magnetic field?
These are very poynted questions and I want to hear the deep, low-down, no-holds-barred answers.
I am asking this because, in my search for answers, it all came down to these questions.
When you try to answer these questions, you will find that something isn't right. Look hard enough, long enough and you'll see how it works and how every device that produces more output energy than input energy works.
We are going to fry some brains, cook some noodles, and leave people in straight jackets.
Grumpy:
Here is the intro clip: "Intro | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFQhsq8SF4&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFQhsq8SF4&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1)
Here is the first of 37 more clips: "Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=2)
I hope that the links are pointing to the right places, YouTube links can be tricky sometimes. I did not have time to find the real "playlist" link for all 37 clips.
If you have never looked at these clips and are truly interested then you should try to get through this stuff, even if it takes months.
In many cases the questions you pose result in a ton of pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo talk on free energy web sites. The answers you are looking for are in the 37 clips that form the MIT course. I realize that my "answer" requires a ton of work to actually get through all of the clips, and some of the material will be very difficult to understand if you don't have a certain minimum background in mathematics.
MileHigh
Hi Milehigh
Thank you for pointing us to the MIT videos. I wonder, though if any of the students will actually have a real "feel" for what is going on in an inductive circuit.
Working the math is one thing, and we should be good at that to fine tune our invention. but invention itself requires a good "feel" for what one is doing. This can be lost in the forest of the math if insufficient lab "hands on" is not practiced.
I have seen and worked with EE's that made serious and fatal errors by being sufficiently removed from the "feel" of what they were trying to accomplish.
I am not trashing EE's as I am one, but I have seen some serious errors posted on this site by EE's who should know better, and if they ever had their hands on this or that device, they would have known better.
Could you point to the video that explains clearly the
Quoteexact mechanism
that causes a current to flow in a closed loop of wire when a permanent magnet is moved in it's proximity?
I would also be interested in your explanation of what exactly is a magnetic "field"
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.06, 12:07:42
Grumpy:
Here is the intro clip: "Intro | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFQhsq8SF4&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFQhsq8SF4&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1)
Here is the first of 37 more clips: "Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=2)
I hope that the links are pointing to the right places, YouTube links can be tricky sometimes. I did not have time to find the real "playlist" link for all 37 clips.
If you have never looked at these clips and are truly interested then you should try to get through this stuff, even if it takes months.
In many cases the questions you pose result in a ton of pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo talk on free energy web sites. The answers you are looking for are in the 37 clips that form the MIT course. I realize that my "answer" requires a ton of work to actually get through all of the clips, and some of the material will be very difficult to understand if you don't have a certain minimum background in mathematics.
MileHigh
I posed the questions because the answer wasn't located anywhere. Every single source skips right around it, except one, and even that one isn't crystal clear.
How does a changing magnetic field around a coil produce a current in the coil?
Come on dudes! Take a good hard look at the ol' "lines of force" as applied to explain induction.
To make it more interesting, let's hypothesize that the great minds that derived the equations for induction glossed over the fine details.
Not being satisfied with magnetic induction, we shall drag the waters until the depths give up their dead! hahahaha! (evil genius laugh..)
edit:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/magnetic_induction.pdf
http://www.1stardrive.com/solar/mag.htm
G,
You sure know how to stir the pot :D
They did gloss over the reality. It is documented. The little iron filings lined up in neat little rows and they figured the rows weren't there without the filings. But the 'lines' idea worked for everything then and I'll assume they figured gas like density gradients were harder to calculate. I think we had it correct in the beginning.
The problem came when the math used was changed. The details evaporated and so did the clarity but the math works!
Can't deny the math!
B.S. ... Throw out the fifth postulate....to start.
Damned magnetic field lines! Guess I need to sharpen my mower blades again :(
Math is just a tool. Equations can give the right answer, yet not reflect reality.
Looking for Bridgman's "The Logic of Modern Physics" - from around 1928. He is supposed to have a different treatment of induction in this book.
What if William's Hooper's "new force" is real? Might as well have crop circles in Kansas...
And when you have something that doesn't fit the model?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.07, 11:45:26
And when you have something that doesn't fit the model?
This is what I am talking about.
When you "move" the magnet, or "move" the coil, or "change" the magnetic field: What are you doing? You no longer have just the magnetic field and the conductor.
You have some charge carriers (free electrons) being influenced by a time-varying magnetic field.
A time-varying magnetic field creates a time-varying electric field.
Ok.
So we increase the density of the charge carriers within the space of the intended induction without modifying the relative movement or strength of the mag.
----------
When I tried this the density of the magnetic field decreased upon relative movement.
My thought experiment likened the mag to a sponge and elec to water saturating the sponge. The idea was to see if induced output could be increased by increasing the saturation of that 'sponge'. This would have allowed addition of a static field to increase output.
Later, I realized my failure was due to only thinking about 2 planes. I was trying with linear movement :-[
Isn't the Lorentz force opposite the force of motion?
Aren't you applying a force to move the conductor or magnet?
Don't you have to move the conductor or magnet perpendicular to the other, and the current is perpendicular to both?
Now we have a force, a magnetic field, and a conductor to work with.
Step aside from induction for a minute and ask yourself: "What causes electrons and other particles to drift?"
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.07, 19:06:05
Isn't the Lorentz force opposite the force of motion?
Lorentz force is the force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields. The force on a current carrying wire has a few more names attached to it (and forces).
QuoteAren't you applying a force to move the conductor or magnet?
On some methods, yes.
I get it. Please continue...
Quote
Don't you have to move the conductor or magnet perpendicular to the other, and the current is perpendicular to both?
Now we have a force, a magnetic field, and a conductor to work with.
Step aside from induction for a minute and ask yourself: "What causes electrons and other particles to drift?"
I'll take a stab at it with 'the charge carrying particle with it's motion within the electric field'. I don't believe that is exactly true but only the way it is normally taught.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.07, 22:01:05
Lorentz force is the force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields. The force on a current carrying wire has a few more names attached to it (and forces).
On some methods, yes.
I get it. Please continue...
I'll take a stab at it with 'the charge carrying particle with it's motion within the electric field'. I don't believe that is exactly true but only the way it is normally taught.
For electrons to drift, they must precess.
Precession can be induced by two orthogonal forces.
In every single instance of induction there are two forces. Either something is changing or moving, and there is a magnetic field.
One method of guiding center drift is FxB drift (I think they use the term "J" instead of "F"). Any independent force orthogonal to a magnetic field induces a current. So, moving magnetic fields induce a current since the force of the movement is orthogonal to the magnetic field inducing it. This is how the collapsing magnetic field of a coil induces current in the conductor (what many mistakenly call BEMF)
(You also may not be aware of it, but a magnetic field can not move in the direction of it's vector. Any appearance of doing so is actually a fold back and forth of the mag field.)
Now, if you could create a force and apply it to a conductor within a magnetic field, you will induce current in the conductor. One such force mentioned in many texts is "gravity". So, taking our "gravity" force, adding a magnetic field, we should be able to induce a current with nothing more than wire and a magnet - if we can orient everything correctly.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.08, 00:04:00
For electrons to drift, they must precess.
Precession can be induced by two orthogonal forces.
In every single instance of induction there are two forces. Either something is changing or moving, and there is a magnetic field.
One method of guiding center drift is FxB drift (I think they use the term "J" instead of "F"). Any independent force orthogonal to a magnetic field induces a current. So, moving magnetic fields induce a current since the force of the movement is orthogonal to the magnetic field inducing it. This is how the collapsing magnetic field of a coil induces current in the conductor (what many mistakenly call BEMF)
BRAVO!
Quote
(You also may not be aware of it, but a magnetic field can not move in the direction of it's vector. Any appearance of doing so is actually a fold back and forth of the mag field.)
One exception.... and it does include folding but also includes disconnection and reconnection (not field lines).
Quote
Now, if you could create a force and apply it to a conductor within a magnetic field, you will induce current in the conductor. One such force mentioned in many texts is "gravity". So, taking our "gravity" force, adding a magnetic field, we should be able to induce a current with nothing more than wire and a magnet - if we can orient everything correctly.
I believe you are correct. However, this action should be barely, if at all, measurable.
The second force should be stronger and almost a twin to the electric field. The closest I can think of is the energy of heat. The problem using heat is that it brings disorder, not order. Without a 'net' order there could be no more precession than that involved in drift current. Any use of heat, as that second force, would require an almost perfect zero voltage drop rectifier or something else to provide the same result.
Correct. Gravity is pretty weak in this regard. Heat might do the trick with the right setup, which is probably quite an engineering challenge.
What if we had another force at our disposal?
I know where you are going with the idea.
The problem I have is my understanding of 'it', to put it bluntly:
The jello where everything is suspended. 'Everything' being not much more than variations of density, eddies, vortices and wakes of the same substance.
How would I control another area of the same jello of which I am a part?
Make waves? I am a 'make waves' kinda guy ;D
Oh! Since I am putting my head on the chopping block.... That one unifying force? 'Elasticity' or the natural function of a force to equally distribute all stored energy.
difference in pressure
like "pressure" or "temperature"
You are familiar with "radiation pressure" - now, inject some steroids and wa-la
Say you found this force laying around on the bench. Shouldn't you only need to position a magnetic field and a conductor, apply the force, and use the current? You could make everything separately controllable and study it all. Will this work?
I'm with WaveWatcher. I see it all as waves on a medium.
I don't think in terms of any unifying force. Instead there's a single source of energy, the perpetually moving waves between particles. The energy becomes a force when the waves interact with the particles, after all, the effect on particles is what we call force.
So heat energy is a chaotic exchange of waves between particles. Electricity, electrons moving along a conductor, is when those waves are exchanged between partilces but in a more pass-the-buck fashion where the energy of the waves is passed from one electron to the next and then on to the next and so on down the conductor.
But I haven't quite got a handle on the magnetic field yet. The particles have spin, which I think is a spherical rotation within the particles. Waves arrive at the particle, undergo spherical rotation, and then are emitted back out. I think this means that the resulting outward moving spherical wave would also have a component resulting from the spherical rotation and not be just a simple expanding spherical wave. When this wave, with some sort of rotational component in it, arrives at an electron, the rotational component interacts with the electron in a way that we see as induction. But I'm still fuzzy on that.
I try to look for ways to tap into all these waves between the particles but have yet to think of a way of doing it. I have a particle creation idea but it falls short too, though since it's all I have at the moment I still pursue it. My fuzziness about the rotational (magnitic field) component still gives me hope.
For the standard model, the equivalent of all this is looking at how to tap into the random pertubations between the particles i.e. quantum vacuum energy. But I find it easier to look at it as waves.
PS. For anyone curious about my particle creation ideas:
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/vacuum_energy
and for the Wave Structure of Matter model:
http://wsminfo.org
Steve
Ill respond when I'm not mobile. Fat fingers and tiny keypads suck.
@All
I think we can confuse this issue to no end or we can make it relatively simple, that is we do not have to create anything new and mysterious to understand things. If we consider that there are three fundamental forces-- electric, magnetic and gravitational then every effect we know of or not can be considered as an interaction between these forces as it relates to whatever occupies a given space. If we discover something new or unique then this is simply an interaction of these forces with what occupies a given space that we have not considered. In this case I think everything becomes easier because we do not have to keep making shit up to explain everything we don't understand and all we have to is say are the words---- I do not understand the interaction of forces. As well we must understand the fundamentals first before anything else can make sense, I hear everyone speaking of magnetism, electricity and their associated fields as if everything was understood yet I have never heard a reasonable explanation for "what" they are. In 30 years of research I have never heard or read a detailed explanation for what they are that was not unproven theories or in layman's terms --- complete BS. In any case I think you guys are moving in the right direction here by keeping everything simple relative to all the BS we see from the scientific community lately, how many mystery particles,strings/strands, alternate dimensions and worm holes can there be?, lol.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.12, 18:10:51
@All
I think we can confuse this issue to no end or we can make it relatively simple, that is we do not have to create anything new and mysterious to understand things. If we consider that there are three fundamental forces-- electric, magnetic and gravitational then every effect we know of or not can be considered as an interaction between these forces as it relates to whatever occupies a given space.
@allcanadian,
And my approach is different. I agree with the conservation of energy (I'm don't know whether you
do or don't) and that energy can only be transformed from one form to another. So I look for
an energy source and then a method to convert that form of energy to one I desire, electrical
energy i.e. electrons moving down a wire. The only source I can see that is sufficiently abundent and omnipresent and will not run out is vacuum energy. So I explore transforming that. As for what is energy and why it is conserved, the wave structure of matter (WSM) model contains a clear and simple explanation of those two things so it suits me well.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.12, 18:10:51
If we discover something new or unique then this is simply an interaction of these forces with what occupies a given space that we have not considered. In this case I think everything becomes easier because we do not have to keep making shit up to explain everything we don't understand and all we have to is say are the words---- I do not understand the interaction of forces.
I have a pretty good grasp of the electrical force, and the gravitational force and less so the magnetic force. Not a perfect grasp, but getting there. But I have that grasp using the WSM model.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.12, 18:10:51
As well we must understand the fundamentals first before anything else can make sense, I hear everyone speaking of magnetism, electricity and their associated fields as if everything was understood yet I have never heard a reasonable explanation for "what" they are. In 30 years of research I have never heard or read a detailed explanation for what they are that was not unproven theories or in layman's terms --- complete BS.
Perhaps the reason you haven't heard of a reasonable explanation is because you are working with an inadequate model for doing so. The standard quantum mechanics models have accomplished wonders and will continue to do so, but since I couldn't find my answers there I looked elsewhere.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.12, 18:10:51
In any case I think you guys are moving in the right direction here by keeping everything simple relative to all the BS we see from the scientific community lately, how many mystery particles,strings/strands, alternate dimensions and worm holes can there be?, lol.
Agreed 100%. Throw enough dimensions in your model and you can probably make anything work. What I like about WSM is its simplicity, and while it still needs an army of physicists to work on it further, just as the standard models had, I'm willing to chance it for now. Scientists talk about elegant models but they sure don't care in practice.
But I'm under no illusion that this group is interested in alternate models. It was just that what WaveWatcher said was so in line with WSM, I thought I'd give it a try here again. If there's no further interest, I won't bother further.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.12, 18:10:51
Regards
AC
I'm a pretty practical kinda guy. So practical that I consider much of the current explanations always needing more explanations and then topped with BS a bit too much..
Particles, particles and more particles. Then come the strings. I want to scream, GIMMEABREAK!
Sure the math works. I've been digging for the note but there was one really funny formula for a banana split that was also used in MHD.
As far as, WSM... never heard of it until very recently. I have read some. Yes, I'll have to agree it is a much simpler explanation but the idea isn't new. All I've seen so far was being taught as far back as the mid 70's. That class explained the other 'pseudo' field - magnetic - as well.
It doesn't matter what vision we are using. Whatever the stuff is, it is still the same stuff.
Oh! I forgot the ultimate fudge-factor - DARK STUFF!
AND, my personal favorite - THE STRINGY STUFF!
THEN..... When those ideas start to fall apart or receive negative comments..... MULTIVERSAL STUFF with MULTIPLE-EXISTENCE/INSTANCE STUFF!
A bowl of jello vibrating with ripples, waves and eddies is much more believable.
I think I'm STUFFED.
Wavewatcher
I am in agreement with your above post. Physics is turning more into religion. For example dark matter and dark energy....it's everywhere but you can't see it or measure it directly. You can only attribute effects to it.
Now if that doesn't sound like religion, what does. The big bang seems more an aspect of pure and real magic than creationism.
In studying electricity, we are first taught like charges repel, and unlike charges attract. But when we go to the nucleus of the atom, that postulate falls apart so we have to patch our theory and invent a term to keep our model from being contradictory. So we invent the "strong force" which keeps these particles clumped together. Then we write a formula for the strong force to prove it exists and everything is happy again, the model has been patched.
I won't get into it here but there is a model that makes more sense and is not full of patches.
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.13, 03:20:12
it's everywhere but you can't see it or measure it directly. You can only attribute effects to it.
Kind of places science and pseudo-science on an even keel, doesn't it :D
QuoteKind of places science and pseudo-science on an even keel, doesn't it
Seems that way.
I am highly interested in your magnetic reconnection theory, and what happens when a magnetic loop gets disconnected. I've got a few ideas about this based on the writings of Bibhas De, but would like your thoughts.
Could you also comment on the SBM idea presented by EMdevices (collector thread) and expanded on by me. You seem to be a ham and RF engineer and might have a good feel for this.
Thanks
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.13, 12:46:50
Seems that way.
I am highly interested in your magnetic reconnection theory, and what happens when a magnetic loop gets disconnected. I've got a few ideas about this based on the writings of Bibhas De, but would like your thoughts.
Could you also comment on the SBM idea presented by EMdevices (collector thread) and expanded on by me. You seem to be a ham and RF engineer and might have a good feel for this.
Thanks
Bibhas De: back to the Companion Field!
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.13, 03:20:12
Wavewatcher
I am in agreement with your above post. Physics is turning more into religion. For example dark matter and dark energy....it's everywhere but you can't see it or measure it directly. You can only attribute effects to it.
Now if that doesn't sound like religion, what does. The big bang seems more an aspect of pure and real magic than creationism.
In studying electricity, we are first taught like charges repel, and unlike charges attract. But when we go to the nucleus of the atom, that postulate falls apart so we have to patch our theory and invent a term to keep our model from being contradictory. So we invent the "strong force" which keeps these particles clumped together. Then we write a formula for the strong force to prove it exists and everything is happy again, the model has been patched.
I won't get into it here but there is a model that makes more sense and is not full of patches.
Does "strong force" attract toward the higher mass or higher density rather than charge?
Since I'm mobile again today, I'll make a quick comment on the SBM effort.
I think the discussion is a valid path. However, I am sure the small toroids in the LTPU and FTPU are NOT chokes(in the common sense). One only needs to look at a close-up of where the poloidal winding reverses to see. Then there is the shape of the core, the connecting wires, and the HV potting compound.
No, a CMC doesn't use bucking windings with only two connections to them.
The real question is what are they mounted on. Try a clean room ionizer with large yellow polyfilm caps to filter the noise on the inputs. This would make the other two wires in that small toroid connections to the home-brew cap plates and core loops within the coil form. The added magnet is placed to make Lorentz help axial flow.
In other words, these little toroids are mini TPUs.
EDIT>> notice the bold word "NOT". Damned cell phone keypads and displays!
QuoteDoes "strong force" attract toward the higher mass or higher density rather than charge?
We are taught to believe this, take your pick......but I prefer a model that doesn't need such forces.
Here is my take on things, maybe not proven, but interesting to think about.
e.g. the nucleus can be modeled as an exit portal to a parallel dimension where all charge reverses therefore it can be thought of as the portal to the anti-world. Charge oscillates between these two dimensions, changing sign as it goes through the portal.
Kick a nucleus too hard and you speed everything up in the cycle and get the recoil of an anti-particle which is just the normal particle that didn't finish out it's cycle and enters this dimension prematurely.
Therefore atoms are energy clouds expanding through all the shells of charge, then collapsing back down to the size of what we call the nucleus, then reversing charge, expanding and repeating this cycle of breath in the anti-world.
In the world, everything that is alive has breath, or a pulsation.
The nucleus appears to be dense because a lot of energy trails are trying to get through that portal.
Normally everything is quite balanced, but radioactivity may be a clue that something is leaking into this dimension.
Tear a big enough hole (critical mass) in that portal and you have a nuclear explosion.
Yin-Yang Symbol anyone? Just a two dimensional model of what may really be happening in the atom.
Just my deluded vision of things.
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.13, 20:46:26
We are taught to believe this, take your pick......but I prefer a model that doesn't need such forces.
Here is my take on things, maybe not proven, but interesting to think about.
e.g. the nucleus can be modeled as an exit portal to a parallel dimension where all charge reverses therefore it can be thought of as the portal to the anti-world. Charge oscillates between these two dimensions, changing sign as it goes through the portal.
Kick a nucleus too hard and you speed everything up in the cycle and get the recoil of an anti-particle which is just the normal particle that didn't finish out it's cycle and enters this dimension prematurely.
Therefore atoms are energy clouds expanding through all the shells of charge, then collapsing back down to the size of what we call the nucleus, then reversing charge, expanding and repeating this cycle of breath in the anti-world.
In the world, everything that is alive has breath, or a pulsation.
The nucleus appears to be dense because a lot of energy trails are trying to get through that portal.
Normally everything is quite balanced, but radioactivity may be a clue that something is leaking into this dimension.
Tear a big enough hole (critical mass) in that portal and you have a nuclear explosion.
Yin-Yang Symbol anyone? Just a two dimensional model of what may really be happening in the atom.
Just my deluded vision of things.
Kinda like what Wilbert Smith said. Hmm - interesting Ion. Interesting.
Just had a break through and I feel so stupid.
Induction is not caused by precessing electrons, but it does appear to be. For regular induction, this works out fine.
Induction is caused by precession of the medium. Good luck getting that without rotating it.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.13, 22:15:19
Kinda like what Wilbert Smith said. Hmm - interesting Ion. Interesting.
Just had a break through and I feel so stupid.
Induction is not caused by precessing electrons, but it does appear to be. For regular induction, this works out fine.
Induction is caused by precession of the medium. Good luck getting that without rotating it.
If there is no precession it is only static charge and can only be conducted and stored by dielectrics. If that has the same charge as you, you see a neutral charge. The electrons are just collections of wave energy, something like a soliton wave in standing water.
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.13, 20:46:26
We are taught to believe this, take your pick......but I prefer a model that doesn't need such forces.
Here is my take on things, maybe not proven, but interesting to think about.
e.g. the nucleus can be modeled as an exit portal to a parallel dimension where all charge reverses therefore it can be thought of as the portal to the anti-world. Charge oscillates between these two dimensions, changing sign as it goes through the portal.
Kick a nucleus too hard and you speed everything up in the cycle and get the recoil of an anti-particle which is just the normal particle that didn't finish out it's cycle and enters this dimension prematurely.
Therefore atoms are energy clouds expanding through all the shells of charge, then collapsing back down to the size of what we call the nucleus, then reversing charge, expanding and repeating this cycle of breath in the anti-world.
In the world, everything that is alive has breath, or a pulsation.
The nucleus appears to be dense because a lot of energy trails are trying to get through that portal.
Normally everything is quite balanced, but radioactivity may be a clue that something is leaking into this dimension.
Tear a big enough hole (critical mass) in that portal and you have a nuclear explosion.
Yin-Yang Symbol anyone? Just a two dimensional model of what may really be happening in the atom.
Just my deluded vision of things.
excerpt from Wilbert Smith's book "The New Science":
QuoteSuppose we call this field of Change a Tempic Field to give it a name of its own, so that we can study its relationship to those things which impinge upon our awareness. Inspection of the Concept shows that if the Change is great the tempic field must be great, but we associate Change with our Concept of Time which is something against which we gauge a rate of change. Expressed mathematically this rate can be written as dS/dt which expresses the manner in which something changes with respect to time. More explicitly this should be written as TS where T is the tempic field operator, and S is the aspect of Reality upon which it operates. A convenient, though only partially adequate description of the Tempic Field is "Frequency", since we recognize frequency as being a certain number of somethings per unit of time, and is dimensionally the reciprocal of Time.
Heretofore we have always considered Time as an immutable flow against which everything evolving Change could be measured, whereas, it is really the converse which is true; Change is the basic concept and Time its derivative. Unfortunately, our mathematics are geared to the Time concept and will require considerable reworking to fit them into this more precise concept, but when this is done there will result a most elegant simplification in all the analysis involving time. In the meantime the transition in thinking can be made less painful if we merely regard Time as the consequence of the existence of a Tempic Field, and is by no means fixed.
It may be interesting at this point to mention something about the velocity of light. This quantity is generally recognized to be something rather basic in our universe, being the "rate at which space changes with time", but when viewed in the light of this new field concept is merely the tempic field intensity, or how the tempic field is distributed in space. We have been told that light doesn't "travel"; it "is", which is an idea not at all foreign to the field concept. Of course, it follows that the velocity of light will be a constant only under conditions of constant tempic field, and if this field changes so will the velocity of light change.
Having had a superficial look at the Tempic Field and its derivation we may now allow our Awareness to inspect the next parameter which is Divergence to see if it is something which can be recognized. Previously we noted that Reality had to extend to infinity from zero in order to establish Space and that unity, so far as Awareness was concerned, lay half way between. With the application of the Quadrature Concept to the parameter of Change or Tempic Field, Divergence is established, from which we derive a starting point a t zero and a finish at infinity. Between these two limits and through unity there is divergence, which we can recognize as the Electric Field, but with the exception that there is no point charge at the zero. Our Awareness, however, established the "charge" at radius unity, with exactly one half of it being "inside" and the other half being "outside". The real significance of this boundary will be apparent when we study the tenth parameter.
QuoteHowever, I am sure the small toroids in the LTPU and FTPU are NOT chokes(in the common sense). One only needs to look at a close-up of where the poloidal winding reverses to see. Then there is the shape of the core, the connecting wires, and the HV potting compound.
Could you expand a bit on how you came to this conclusion, since it is one you are sure of. I am interested in your take on this, and feel you probably have more to say about the designs of these units, and that may have already been posted but I missed it, as posts often get buried.
Could you point to where the poloidal winding reverses?
I was suggesting that by design (to act as a line noise canceling device) a CMC has nicely balanced windings which would make it's use ideal for a Single Balanced Mixer ( at high audio, ultrasonic frequencies, and on out to 30 MHz) if the windings were used in a center tapped wiring configuration with the proper phase relationship established. Then any additional turns passed through the center could act as input to the mixer.
As far as I remember, HV potting compound, and an insulating strip was used in early CMC's before formers were developed specifically for that application. The approval agencies UL, CSA etc require a minimum of 1500 volts dielectric isolation between the windings and connections in such "across the line" applications. Although a bifilar winding would be better balanced, it would not meet with the required dielectric standard. SM used what was readily available.
Thank you for commenting on this.
One thing that may or may not be part of the design, if and a big IF i am on the right track by phase delaying 2 pulses to create the kick, one thing i have already proved is that any part of the combined coils would need to be potted down tightly.
When i setup a coil system to test to get consistent results using a scan to find the kick point phase delay, even moving 1 turn only very slightly results in a complete retune of the system requiring a new phase delay to create the kick/explosions.
When i built my coil in the explosion video and set the delay up to a set nS period if i pressed down hard on the coil and wooden former it was enough to alter the coil shape and thus would require me to find the new nS delay for the effect to continue.
In SM's case he would then have to re alter his wire delay line length accordingly, so it would have been most important for him to first embed the collector and control coils in the goo and then make the delay coils.
Hi Peterae
Granted, in a good RF design everything must be tied down and spacing is important, the higher the frequency the greater care in this respect. But a look at the SM17 shows wires flying all over inside the unit. This would seem to contradict a HF design or one that requires careful attention to pulse shape.
BTW, I edited my earlier post to explain the potting compound.
Keep up the good work!
ION,
I will answer your questions but the answers will be placed under my bench titled something like "Method for electric charge rotation (circular peristaltic pumping)".
Since this title is my explanation of the small toroid function and subsequently, a central TPU function, I prefer to place the information there.
Having never found the time to create a truly usable How-To (Covering most experimenter levels) with complete theory, my first posts will be pointed at your questions and I may not go far beyond those questions until I finish the originally intended package. The last time I shared a complete How-To with theory, test methods, results and equipment calibration certs, there were so many folks screaming obscenities and vomiting math there was never any indication somebody tried to follow the instructions.
(My first encounter with damnation threats from the religious right, too :P. I'll never leave usable tracing info visible on posted documents again! )
EDIT>>> I'll change that topic under my bench to 'Small Toroid'. Showing the whole path may be a bit too much for many folks.
toroids or not, Peter and I have produced interesting effects
I have no doubts about that.
I am quite sure the way the small toroid works is hardly related to the relaxation burst shown on Perterae's vids. I doubt either one have anything to do with the book thumper's version of induction.
One thing I do know, for sure. We don't have a clue as to how many different types of TPUs have been seen. 'Types' as in, how many different ways to produce the required effects, with what components or general overall appearance.
I can imagine as many as six different application combinations seen on all the common videos.
Even if there are only three...... Do you think a guy who can build something three different ways DOESN'T KNOW how it works?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.15, 04:58:24
Even if there are only three...... Do you think a guy who can build something three different ways DOESN'T KNOW how it works?
So true!
SM talked specifically about causing the electrons to drift in the wire - much of this audio has gaps in it as it was deleted.
What other means of induction is opccuring in the TPU's to induce current in the collector?
G,
Have you seen these thoughts?
http://www.physics-edu.org/rightangle.htm
I hate to paint a target on my back but I am wanting to contact him and ask him what part of my old outfit he was in.
I think there are a few who understand the true nature of induction and related forces. Most can't tell you what charge and magnetics are.
Hint: Look at a bar magnet with the poles pointing right and left in your view. You see the magnetic dipole.
Rotate the same bar magnet so you are looking straight at the end of the bar. You are looking at a point source.
There. That should get the wolves howling :D
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.16, 22:32:44
G,
Have you seen these thoughts?
http://www.physics-edu.org/rightangle.htm
I hate to paint a target on my back but I am wanting to contact him and ask him what part of my old outfit he was in.
I think there are a few who understand the true nature of induction and related forces. Most can't tell you what charge and magnetics are.
Hint: Look at a bar magnet with the poles pointing right and left in your view. You see the magnetic dipole.
Rotate the same bar magnet so you are looking straight at the end of the bar. You are looking at a point source.
There. That should get the wolves howling :D
Good stuff, WW.
There's a bad moon on the rise...
I'll say something to get the wolves howling. There is no north pole or south pole with respect to magnets and magnetism. Those are simply naming conventions that we use to make describing what we are doing in our experiments easier and more understandable.
People think that a magnet "has" a north pole and a south pole, or that there "is" a north pole and a south pole. Many many times I have seen threads on the forums where people debate and argue about different properties attributed to the north and south poles.
Magnets have no north and south poles in the sense that the magnetic lines of force travel in circular paths that form closed loops. There is no start or end or north or south to the magnetic lines of force. Just like there is no start or end to a circle.
Certainly magnetic lines of force are vectors, they have magnitude and direction. A magnet is simply a bunching together of those magnetic lines of force. So you can arbitrarily say that when the magnetic vectors are pointed towards you it's "north" and when they are pointed away from you it's "south."
However, in the truest sense "north" and "south" only exist on paper.
MileHigh
MH,
Yep agreed ;)
.99
OK - no north or south just plus or minus vectors
if I move a magnetic field and a conductor at the same time, same direction, joined at the hip, is a current produced?
If so, will moving "space" itself, or modifying it's properties so that it appears to move induce a current in the conductor joined to a magnet?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.17, 01:29:37
OK - no north or south just plus or minus vectors
if I move a magnetic field and a conductor at the same time, same direction, joined at the hip, is a current produced?
Is this a trick question? :-\ Of course not...
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.08.17, 01:59:41
Is this a trick question? :-\ Of course not...
homopolar generator is one example
This is the trick question - it's freakin' loaded:
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.17, 01:29:37
If so, will moving "space" itself, or modifying it's properties so that it appears to move induce a current in the conductor joined to a magnet?
Before someone shouts out something about moving "charges", consider that a moving charge is a "convection current" and by that alone it must have a magnetic field. So, a current creates it's own magnetic field. What's says you can not create a magnetic field by moving space itself? Some will say, space is a vacuum and all that. Yes, but this "vacuum" has properties such permittivity and permeability. Propagate a change of the properties and what happens? After all, isn't all that a moving field is? - propagating change in properties.
EDIT:
If EM fields have momentum and inertia, what differentiates them from an aether?
Grumpy:
I am no expert on electromagnetics, but here is a good analogy: You are at one end of a long hallway-style carpet, and you pick it up and you shake it up and down and you see the waves travel through the carpet. So empty space is like a 3D carpet, and waves travel through it in the same way. The carpet has stiffness and mass per unit area, and that's like the permittivity and permeability. The ratio of the stiffness to the mass determines the speed of the wave, and the 3D "carpet" in space has a wave speed of C.
Also, the wave traveling through space is just the electric field and magnetic fields oscillating back and forth 90 degrees out of phase and in planes that are at right angles to each other. Any point on the carpet does the same thing. For the carpet it is the "velocity field" and he "tension field" that are oscillating back and forth. Visualizing the velocity vector in the carpet is easy. Visualizing the tension vector is a little bit more difficult. When you are traveling with the wave on the peaks, that's where the tension in the carpet is at its maximum and the velocity is at its minimum. When you are traveling along the wave at the the "neutral" height, that's where the tension is at its minimum and the velocity is at its maximum. The velocity vectors and the tension vectors are 90 degrees out of phase, just like in an EM wave.
in both cases the waves are the manifestation of the flow of energy. When you shake the carpet up and down energy is flowing out of you and down the length of the carpet.
Not sure if that helps but what the hey!
MileHigh
Since we all understand the true non-nature of magnetic polarity don't you think this understanding should be extended into the realm of charge?
There is no charge beyond zero except non-zero (good luck finding zero charge anywhere) ....
Going by numeric amounts, negative charge isn't negative. It is only less than the 'positive' charge in a comparison. If true, 'neutral' charges are neutral compared to what?
I'll lock my doors and go to bed after this one....
Electric and magnetic are not separate because they are just two different perspectives of the same thing, just like the bar magnet in my example.
Does that make induction an easier picture? It did for me.
Agreed WW.
And IMHO, to date there has not been a good definition for what "charge" is.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.17, 04:19:08
Grumpy:
I am no expert on electromagnetics, but here is a good analogy: You are at one end of a long hallway-style carpet, and you pick it up and you shake it up and down and you see the waves travel through the carpet. So empty space is like a 3D carpet, and waves travel through it in the same way. The carpet has stiffness and mass per unit area, and that's like the permittivity and permeability. The ratio of the stiffness to the mass determines the speed of the wave, and the 3D "carpet" in space has a wave speed of C.
Also, the wave traveling through space is just the electric field and magnetic fields oscillating back and forth 90 degrees out of phase and in planes that are at right angles to each other. Any point on the carpet does the same thing. For the carpet it is the "velocity field" and he "tension field" that are oscillating back and forth. Visualizing the velocity vector in the carpet is easy. Visualizing the tension vector is a little bit more difficult. When you are traveling with the wave on the peaks, that's where the tension in the carpet is at its maximum and the velocity is at its minimum. When you are traveling along the wave at the the "neutral" height, that's where the tension is at its minimum and the velocity is at its maximum. The velocity vectors and the tension vectors are 90 degrees out of phase, just like in an EM wave.
in both cases the waves are the manifestation of the flow of energy. When you shake the carpet up and down energy is flowing out of you and down the length of the carpet.
Not sure if that helps but what the hey!
MileHigh
OK
Now move the entire building that the carpet resides in.
===================================
Another question is does moving or changing "space" have it's own magnetic field? I think it might if it is polarized, since all the little virtual photons will be aligned, and they spin.
G, I think what you ask can be seen in the Stewart-Tolman effect & Barnett effect. I wonder if magnetoresistance and ferroelectricity can be related, too.
Relativity predicted that a moving magnetic dipole develops an electric dipole moment.
Paul Dirac put forth the idea that space consists of a sea of virtual photons - just waiting to be pulled into our reality.
So, if you polarize this sea of virtual photons so that the magnetic moments are aligned, and you move them, then you will get an electric dipole moment.
Dirac Sea Induction
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.17, 03:06:11
homopolar generator is one example
I disagree.
A homopolar generator works because there are charge carriers (electrons in the metalic disk) moving relative to a fixed or stationary magnetic field. Yes the magnet rotates with the disk, but it's field remains stationary relative to the charge carriers moving around and through this field.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.08.17, 18:32:40
I disagree.
A homopolar generator works because there are charge carriers (electrons in the metalic disk) moving relative to a fixed or stationary magnetic field. Yes the magnet rotates with the disk, but it's field remains stationary relative to the charge carriers moving around and through this field.
.99
Disagree with what? the homopolar generator is an example of a conductor moving with a magnetic field if you attach the magnet to the disc. Both magnet and disc rotate relative to the "space" around them.
I propose that a current is also produced if the "space" around the disc/magnet is rotated and the disc magnet is fixed.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.17, 18:54:59
Disagree with what? the homopolar generator is an example of a conductor moving with a magnetic field if you attach the magnet to the disc. Both magnet and disc rotate relative to the "space" around them.
I propose that a current is also produced if the "space" around the disc/magnet is rotated and the disc magnet is fixed.
Read my response again.
I am saying that with a homopolar generator, the conductor
does not move with the magnetic field. There is relative motion between them and that is what causes the induced voltage.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.08.17, 19:00:57
Read my response again.
I am saying that with a homopolar generator, the conductor does not move with the magnetic field. There is relative motion between them and that is what causes the induced voltage.
A homopolar generator will still produce a current if the magnet is attached to the disc.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.17, 19:55:23
A homopolar generator will still produce a current if the magnet is attached to the disc.
Indeed, and I did mention that in my first response.
Notwithstanding, the field does not move nor vary even if the magnet is attached to the disc.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.08.17, 20:04:08
Indeed, and I did mention that in my first response.
Notwithstanding, the field does not move nor vary even if the magnet is attached to the disc.
A magnetic field resides in space and if it is homogenous about a center axis, then you can not tell if it changes or not when it is rotated. This is synonymous with rotating a colored disk and trying to tell if the color changes. If you cut a slot in the magnet, the field is now inhomogenous and you can see the rotation.
Induction is caused by the motion between the magnetically polarized disc and the non-motional space in/around it.
Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you two actually agree :D
One is saying the apple is red. The other is saying the apple seeds are dark brown :)
Something like that.... been a long day.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.17, 21:24:00
Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you two actually agree :D
One is saying the apple is red. The other is saying the apple seeds are dark brown :)
Something like that.... been a long day.
I don't think we are agreeing actually, and that is ok. Everyone has their own perspective on things.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.08.17, 22:46:50
I don't think we are agreeing actually, and that is ok. Everyone has their own perspective on things.
The important thing is that we are communicating!
(I'll be back to the bench soon - think I have my triggering figured out now.)
All I'm getting at here is that there is another means of induction: move the medium and leave the conductor and magnetic field static
I firmly believe that charge, like magnetism, is a property of space. So I await your findings.
QuoteAll I'm getting at here is that there is another means of induction: move the medium and leave the conductor and magnetic field static
Maybe just move the dielectric field (charge) within the medium. A moving charge generates a magnetic field.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/MovingCharge/MovingCharge.html
This would have the effect of a monopole magnetic field circulating within the torus.
We know that a common magnet circulating poloidialy within a torus results in a null output from the toroidal overwinding, i.e. all flux lines cut by the leading pole are also cut by the trailing pole. A monopole is needed. I think the only way to generate this is with a moving charge.
I did try this experiment with a three foot long cylinder with a coil wound over it. You only get an impulse when the magnet is entering or leaving the cylinder. As it travels through the middle region there is no output, neither AC or DC.
I should retry this experiment by dropping a charged sphere down the cylinder.
So I believe a monopole (scientific impossibility?) would generate a steady current as it moved
through the coil.....but I may be way off base and just confused.
So how do we convince a charge to propagate in a circular fashion around our torus.
I imagine that a circulating charge within the dielectric would have the windup or "turbine effect" SM mentioned as preferred paths are "established" by the charge.
"Best that a man keep his mouth shut and be thought dumb, rather than open it and remove all doubts"
Guess I've removed a few doubts.
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.17, 23:58:34
Maybe just move the dielectric field (charge) within the medium. A moving charge generates a magnetic field.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/MovingCharge/MovingCharge.html
This would have the effect of a monopole magnetic field circulating within the torus.
We know that a common magnet circulating poloidialy within a torus results in a null output from the toroidal overwinding, i.e. all flux lines cut by the leading pole are also cut by the trailing pole. A monopole is needed. I think the only way to generate this is with a moving charge.
I did try this experiment with a three foot long cylinder with a coil wound over it. You only get an impulse when the magnet is entering or leaving the cylinder. As it travels through the middle region there is no output, neither AC or DC.
I should retry this experiment by dropping a charged sphere down the cylinder.
So I believe a monopole (scientific impossibility?) would generate a steady current as it moved
through the coil.....but I may be way off base and just confused.
So how do we convince a charge to propagate in a circular fashion around our torus.
I imagine that a circulating charge within the dielectric would have the windup or "turbine effect" SM mentioned as preferred paths are "established" by the charge.
"Best that a man keep his mouth shut and be thought dumb, rather than open it and remove all doubts"
Guess I've removed a few doubts.
Thanks Ion. I was trying a more general approach than my previous attempts to explain a virtual Wilson Effect. Relativity predicted that a moving magnetic dipole develops an electric dipole moment. Rotating dielectric cylinder, in a static magentic field, produced charge separation on metallic cylinders inside and outside the rotating dielectric. The same effect is predicted by Willie Johnson Jr. when you precess a capacitor in a gravitational field (he probably works for he NSA now). Even bound or virtual charges in motion (such as in a dielectric) produce this electric dipole moment. Wilson believed that he could create current equivalent to a conventional generator if he could rotate the dielectric fast enough.
Vacuum is a dielectric. Pulsing a coil with high self-induction with HV DC pulses contracts the vacuum. A circle of coils, sequentially triggered will contract the vacuum and cause it to rotate like a peristaltic pump. Bada Bing - Bada Boom - I just can't get my avalanche pulser to trigger reliably....LOL!
Side note: If a magnetic field is radial so that one pole is outside and the other is inside (sphere?), it would appear as a monopole. Not sure what a closed mag field would look like...
If I can not get the trigger working this weekend, then I'm proceeding with free-running switches and delay elements. Done screwin' around with this.
Side notes:
1. the size of the field appears to be related to voltage and the density or strength of the field appears to be related to rise-time
2. You can "probe" the field to determine it's size and strength with the following methods:
A. a magnet in your hand - you will feel it pulse like a tug - tug is stronger closer to the coil - if you feel nothing at the same distance as your collector, then adjust the field
B. a sinewave through a coil or air-capacitor will change frequency since the permeabilty and permittivity of "vacuum" are altered within the field
C. I suspect that a peizoelectric speaker or transducer will indicate a change, but have not tried this yet.
Anyway, I can map the damn field now.
@Grumpy,
Can you possibly repeat your 'dropping magnet through your cylindrical coil' experiment with the following difference. Take 2 magnets placed on a steel divider thick enough to allow like poles to adhere so effectively creating a 'bar' with same poles at each outer end. Its one I will try for experiments sake, but as you have, hopefully the setup already, it may be done sooner.
A similar setup I will try is to pivot the steel centre so it can be rotated with a torus as the 'pickup' coil.
Im disregarding the textbooks with this but this TPU thing needs nonconventional practices regards the DC output.
In anticipation of an anomality...
Steve.
I think it was Ion that dropped a magnet down a coil.
I just held one near a HV-pulsed coil and "throbs" - very eery
QuoteTake 2 magnets placed on a steel divider thick enough to allow like poles to adhere so effectively creating a 'bar' with same poles at each outer end.
Unfortunately, the poles facing the steel divider do not hide their field lines, instead the field lines will follow the divider to the midpoint and sharply emerge at a right angle folding back to the opposite pole.
This again will result in a null, but I'm just theorizing, haven't actually tried it so I could be wrong.
QuoteA similar setup I will try is to pivot the steel centre so it can be rotated with a torus as the 'pickup' coil.
This arrangement would be somewhat similar to a "Newman" motor if the poles were arranged to align with the poloidal. I would expect no output since in this arrangement, the torus winding will be cut with equal polarity poles, possibly another null effect.
But good luck...there is a lot to be learned by doing the experiment.
I'm betting the charged sphere moved in one direction will produce the long sought after DC output.
But just guessing, haven't tried it yet.
Best of good luck in your research, Steve
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.22, 00:12:22
I'm betting the charged sphere moved in one direction will produce the long sought after DC output.
coming soon to a theater near you... ;D
Hi all,
Initial tests on a cylindrical coil connected to a scope.
Dropping a disc neo through gave the expected humps on entry and exit with nothing noticeable while traversing the coil. Placing two discs (10 high x 20mm diameter) with a smaller diameter ferrite ring (30h 15od 7id) so like poles are outermost gave a double hump on entry and exit (inverse humps) but traversing the cylinder also gave a ringing down effect.
There exists the possibility that the magnetic 'core' had a wobble during its travel, causing this effect. Tomorrow Ill try to make a shuttle to prevent this.
The same setup using smaller neos in this configuration 'appeared' to take longer when dropped through a copper pipe.
I need a longer pipe to establish this as a fact.
Interesting at present but with mechanical inefficiencies.
Steve.
Good work Steve
I'm guessing that a charged sphere would dissipate it's charge too quickly, being only a couple of pF to the air.
I thought maybe a sphere on a insulating pole with an external power supply to keep it charged would be the way, but the wire would also be moving down the coil,so this would not be a true test.
Probably the best way would be a hollow sphere with a high voltage cap inside. It could ride on a metal rod with insulated bushings. The rod could be grounded to one end of the coil, and one end of the cap would have a slider that contacts the rod. Sphere gets the other end of the cap.
From a post at OU: (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5662.msg254808#msg254808)
QuoteIn my course on electromagnetics at MIT, we were taught that "no one knows if the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet". This is nonsense, and even Richard Feynman agrees with me. There are a number of simple experiments to determine if the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet, and I have performed many of them. In all of my experiments, the end result was that the magnetic lines of force do *NOT* rotate with the magnet. The very best experiment that you can do is to obtain some ferromagnetic fluid (like "Magnasee" or "Magnaview") that has nano-sized ferromagnetic particles in it. Pour the fluid on a non-conductive platter (like a plate or saucer. or a petri dish), and then place a neodymium ring magnet on the bottom of the plate. You will now see the ferro-fluid arrange itself in a manner that reflects the position and strength of the magnetic lines of force (what Faraday called "tubes of force" in his writings). As you rotate the magnet (on its magnetic axis) on the bottom, you will see that the lines of force do not rotate with the magnet. You *may* see that some of the lines of force undulate a bit as you do this-- but that is because no permanent magnet is perfect, and there may be areas of the magnet that have slightly stronger or weaker magnetic activity.
What this must mean, is that the spinning and/or revolving charged particles in the magnet are somehow affecting (or "disturbing") the local space-time (the aether) that surrounds and permeates the magnet-- in a way that causes these "lines of force" to form. The same thing happens when you pass a current through a coil of wire.
To really understand what is happening with either a permanent magnet, or an electromagnet, one must understand the nature of the aether.
<speculation
The aether, must have small particles in it that resemble a electric and/or magnetic dipole-- probably cylindrical, and spinning like a gyro at relativistic speeds. These particles are probably very small-- on the order of one-half Plank length. The aether, must be a fluid that is extremely dense (many times that of lead), but at the same time it behaves like a super-fluid to objects moving through it. It is clear, that application of an AC electric field can (at least partially) make this fluid more dense (or rigid)-- much like a liquid crystal. It is also clear that a DC electric field can (at least partially) cause this fluid to rarefy. The presence of a charged particle appears to cause the electromagnetic dipoles to line up in a serial fashion-- creating "electric lines of force", that are perpendicular to the surface of the charged particle. The absolute motion of a charged particle through the aether appears to cause the electromagnetic dipoles to form a ring (the "magnetic line of force"), the axis of which is normal to the direction of motion. Since the electromagnetic particles are spinning (like a gyroscope), it takes time for the lines of force to be formed-- for the gyroscopic particles to "precess", and line up in a serial fashion. The faster the particles move in the aether, the greater the energy in the magnetic field (and the larger it's influence.)
Neutral particles (like neutrons) must be formed of an equal number of positive and negative charged particles-- (probably one electron, and one neutron), but because the electric fields are so short, there is no observable electric field outside of th neutral particle-- though one does exist.) If a neutral particle (like a neutron) is moved through the aether, there would also be an associated magnetic field set up for each of the positive and negative particles-- but again, the field is so short that it is not easily observable outside of the neutral particle.
It also appears that the aether can be "dragged along" by matter-- like eddies in a pond. The Earth probably drags the aether around with it as it rotates on it's axis, and revolves around the sun, and as the solar system travels through space (towards the constellation Leo, I think). This is why the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a null result (actually it was slightly positive), and the experiments of Dayton Miller showed a definite positive result. This was the reason that Einstein changed his mind about the existence of the aether-- and declared that his "relativity theory" could not exist without it.
It is highly likely that the magnetic field allows a particle to "drill through" the aether without resistance-- as long as the velocity is maintained. If the velocity is changed (+/- acceleration), then there will be a period of resistance to the change in velocity until the magnetic field reaches equilibrium with the surrounding media (the aether).
In this manner, we can explain inertia as an effect of the magnetic field around moving matter (whether observable or not-- it is still there); and (possibly) we might also explain gravity as a secondary effect caused by the electric fields that all particles have-- with rarefaction of the aether caused by matter, and other bodies of matter moving towards the lower energy state of the rarefied aether.
></speculation>
I don't know if my above speculation of the nature and behavior of the aether is correct. What I *do* know, is that there is a Nobel prize waiting for the person that can provably define the aether, and provide mathematical equations that we can use to engineer things that interact in useful ways with the aether.
Oh, and BTW-- there *is* back-emf/back-torque on any Faraday homopolar motor/generator-- it is a silly notion to think that you somehow get "free energy" from a different physical configuration of a simple electromagnetic device. No Faraday homopolar generator (or motor) violates the laws of electromagnetics or physics, and that's a fact. Any claim to the contrary can be assumed to be measurement error. [Yes-- I am aware of DePalma et. al.-- and I think that what they are claiming can be explained by simple measurement error.] If I am wrong about this (and you want me to admit it), then you need to describe a simple table-top experiment that I can perform myself, that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the laws of electromagnetics are being violated.
If you are looking for "free energy", you would be better off to spend your time experimenting with the zero-point energy field-- and trying to "pump" energy out of that. To me, the most promising area of experimentation would be to follow in the footsteps of Tesla, and explore the field of his "radiant electricity" (aka: "radiant energy").
An MIT person?
At MIT the standard line is 'it doesn't matter if the flux lines rotate or not'. Unless the field density changes across the conductor, nothing happens. This is why you can stand a conductor in one place with no induced current. Whether the flux rotates with the planet or stands still, there will be no induction, except for the tiny variations he explains.
The only reason you can use a long-wire antenna to charge a battery is due to the static charge buildup. It has almost nothing to do with radio signals.
Telluric currents are another story.
There are two ways to increase the results of induction, aside from running more current through the primary or increasing inductive reactance. Increase the variation of magnetic flux density or increase the charge density.
At least, that is the way I see it.
Hi all,
...maybe sorry for bringing this old thread up again. (Sometimes I feel like dropping on square one again...much info-input does not always mean much clarity for me... :-[)
Induction:
I realized having still not understood the closed iron-cored transformer.
(Maybe this has already been covered - sorry, I didn't find it... could then someone please give me a hint or a link? Thanks in advance!)
The primary coil I can "nearly" understand: current in copper coil generates magnetic flux which is "soaked up" by the iron core. OK. ...almost ok... but let's go on...
Magnetic flux is confined in the core, almost no magnetic field measurable at the outside.
Now to the secondary coil: how does the coil realize that there is magnetic flux inside the core if all the flux is confined?
...and how does it "see" ALL the confined flux?
The mathematic view is "clear" - but my physical imagination leaves me baffeled... again...
Cheers,
Sivispacem
Sivispacem,
The magnetic flux may be confined to the core, but since this flux is 'changing' and is "within" the secondary, an emf is produced there.
A changing magnetic flux produces a changing electric field.
Hope that helps.
.99
magnetic potential is outside the core
For those thinking field lines cutting wire or wire cutting field lines is a valid statement....
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.03, 09:39:12
For those thinking field lines cutting wire or wire cutting field lines is a valid statement....
In the same way (a good exercice for all experimenters O0):
http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/2238
Nevertheless it doesn't dismiss flux cutting which is one of the best way to explain the phenomenon because it is a causal explanation. A varying flux through the circuit surface is a mathematical method to compute emf, it is not the reason of induction, otherwise induction would be non local.
The computation of induction from the vector potential is by far the best method. It works in any case, and it is causal and local if we agree about the physical reality of this potential.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.03, 09:39:12
For those thinking field lines cutting wire or wire cutting field lines is a valid statement....
Are you assuming this example some how contradicts those basic assumptions?
This example is very easy to understand and we had this discussion before elsewere. It's demonstrated in physics classes to get the student to think about magnetic flux and not just circuit components.
A) In the left drawing, the changing flux induces a curent in the loop and the lighbulbs are ON. The voltage across the light bulbs builds up because of their RESISTENCE. This is the difference between a CURRENT SOURCE AND A VOLTAGE SOURCE.
B) In the right drawing, the current flows through the switch BECAUSE IT'S THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE PATH.
Basic electrodynamic theory.
EM
Yes, I understand it.
I also understand that flux lines are only a concept to make the understanding of the function and the math more palatable. They don't exist any more than topographic lines exist in the real world.
My point was that induction isn't based upon some imaginary lines cutting across wires or vice verse. It is due to the area of the wire loop and a relative change in flux density within that area.
A prime example was a simple magnetic remote control I built several years ago. The output was basically RF at 35kHz. It would work fine as long as it was within the receiving loop. It didn't seem to matter how big the loop was. To my surprise it worked just as well with the receiving loop wrapped around the entire house one time. With the small loop (the same length of wire wrapped in multiple turns) it had to be within a few inches of the loop. With no changes to the transmitter it worked just as well within a the same wire loop wrapped around the house with about 40 ft. diameter.
A better example is a toroidal transformer core. Supposedly, the magnetic forces are all contained within that core. If flux lines cutting wires was the way it worked most transformers wouldn't work.
Anyway, it is just a sticking point for me. When I see someone talk about flux cutting wires or wires cutting flux it is like they are dragging their front teeth across a chalkboard producing a big screeching noise :o
I'll try to remember that: No more flux cutting for you! ;D
I'm kind of rebel too, I've been thinking of all sorts of examples on how to disprove certain concepts held dear by others, but I gave up, they are tools like you say, and I've learned to use the correct tool for the job.
We know there are no flux LINES, only flux. A line is a prop to help other understand. In actuality we have a smootly varring vector field, no sharp, distincitve, easily identifiable "LINES".
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.18, 20:05:15
In actuality we have a smootly varring vector field, no sharp, distincitve, easily identifiable "LINES".
I wish my vector fields were still smooth. The lines are visible on me, now :'( (wrinkles)
Quote
I'm kind of rebel too, I've been thinking of all sorts of examples on how to disprove certain concepts held dear by others, but I gave up, they are tools like you say, and I've learned to use the correct tool for the job.
Don't give up on that. There are folks out there needing correction. Think about it.
One minute they are saying all the magnetic force is contained within the toroidal core.
The next minute they are talking about flux cutting wire.
Is there any wonder people freak out when a circuit shows a non-conservative electric field and seems to defy a basic law?
In another post you said the angle of the magnetic field is contained within the formula. Yes, it is but.... not many seem to know that and probably can't calculate induction unless cos(angle) equates to zero or 180.
Maybe it doesn't really matter because induction never goes to zero regardless of the angle - most examples of calculating induction become more and more incorrect as the magnetic field approaches being parallel with the conductor loop. I suppose that is why we have knobs for tuning :D
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.18, 19:56:56
...
My point was that induction isn't based upon some imaginary lines cutting across wires or vice verse.
I agree, with restriction (see below).
Quote
It is due to the area of the wire loop and a relative change in flux density within that area.
I disagree.
There is only one cause for moving electrons: an electric field in which electrons are submitted to the force F=q*E and therefore creates a current. There is no other way.
A varying magnetic flux through a surface doesn't create this field. A varying magnetic flux through a surface is only a concommitant phenomenon with the existence, at the position of the electrons, of a vector potential A, which is the only cause to create the electric field E (E=-dA/dt). The computation of the emf from the flux through a surface is just math (it follows from Gauss's law).
Back to the imaginary field lines. Although they are "imaginary", they are a much better guide to interpret induction than flux through a surface. A varying magnetic flux is wrongly thought as something flowing along a path, such a river, and that could be modulated or interrupted. This is totally false, this magnetic "flux" is a confusing term that leads to misinterpretations. In fact, a magnetic flux is formed of field circles around a conductor carrying a current. When the current increases, the circles expand. But along the circles, there is nothing flowing, no flux, it is static. Therefore the imaginary "density of field lines" is a better image, a much better way of thinking about what is really going on, than a "flux" that wrongly suggests a flow of something that doesn't exist.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.19, 09:21:26
I disagree.
There is only one cause for moving electrons: an electric field in which electrons are submitted to the force F=q*E and therefore creates a current. There is no other way.
What about particles drifts? This occurs from a combination of fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiding_center
@exnihiloest
QuoteThere is only one cause for moving electrons: an electric field in which electrons are submitted to the force F=q*E and therefore creates a current. There is no other way.
QuoteThe greatest obstacle to progress in science is the illusion of knowledge, the illusion that we know what's going on when we really don't. ~Prof. Mike Disney
Regards
AC
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.19, 09:21:26
"It is due to the area of the wire loop and a relative change in flux density within that area."
I disagree.
To be completely honest, you should disagree. I have as much trouble with -the only flux that matters is within the area of the loop- as I do with nonexistent field lines. I did not wish to go beyond robbing the lines from folks. At least, not immediately ;)
In reality.... -the flux in loop surface area- is how induction is taught at higher levels - or it was at one time.
Quote
There is only one cause for moving electrons: an electric field in which electrons are submitted to the force F=q*E and therefore creates a current. There is no other way.
I hope you jest.
Electron motion is not current flow in a metal conductor. In many cases the electrons actually travel the opposite direction of current flow and at velocities I can match afoot. My best understanding of electric current in a metal wire is that charge is moving at some sizable fraction of c not electrons.
I must assume your 'q' is actually 'Q' (charge in this context - not 'C' as most cases). I think the beginning of this misconception was before the particle (electron) was discovered. 'electron' once meant 'charge' but hasn't since the particle was discovered. Some things are hard to let go even after more than a hundred years :)
Quote
Back to the imaginary field lines. Although they are "imaginary", they are a much better guide to interpret induction than flux through a surface. A varying magnetic flux is wrongly thought as something flowing along a path, such a river, and that could be modulated or interrupted. This is totally false, this magnetic "flux" is a confusing term that leads to misinterpretations. In fact, a magnetic flux is formed of field circles around a conductor carrying a current. When the current increases, the circles expand. But along the circles, there is nothing flowing, no flux, it is static. Therefore the imaginary "density of field lines" is a better image, a much better way of thinking about what is really going on, than a "flux" that wrongly suggests a flow of something that doesn't exist.
I see I should not toy with the tools used by others.
In your imagination with those field lines picture a toroid shaped magnetic field around a vertical bar magnet, North on top and South on bottom. See those field lines in your imagination? Also look at the electric current traveling around the 'equator' of that toroid shaped magnetic field - the one producing the magnetic field -.
Now move your perspective directly above the bar magnet looking down on the North pole. You see one polarity with field lines radiating out to infinity and what appeared as the electric current before now looks like the magnetic field around this apparent point charge(Moving point charge ;)). Look from below and see the same except you see only the other polarity and the apparent magnetic field is going around the other direction.
The magnetic field lines (only when you viewed from the side) are always connected - as you have stated. The only exception is during magnet reconnection.
As is well thought the electric field is just a different view of a magnetic field. I am quite sure they are both one and the same as viewed from different frames of reference.
Until I rid myself of the field lines it was impossible to see how both could be the same. Maybe that was only a personal problem C.C
One good thing has come about...... Those pesky magnetic field lines of the Earth no longer foul up my lawn mower blades ;D
(Sometimes imagination isn't a good thing)
WW said:
QuoteOne good thing has come about...... Those pesky magnetic field lines of the Earth no longer foul up my lawn mower blades Grin
(Sometimes imagination isn't a good thing)
Perhaps with the right kind of lawn mower blades, you wouldn't need the engine.
Moving at 1000 mph at the equator through this stationary "field", it might only require a tiny disturbance, perhaps a conduit that guides the flux into a coriolis type spin. Then you will have what SM was talking about. Provide the conduit and the flux will spinnup with the equivalent speed of a generator circumference of one foot going 88,000 RPM.
Even the rather weak flux of the earth field would produce noticable power at that speed.
You are right about that imagination thing.
Something akin to a spinning charge
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.20, 02:00:51
Something akin to a spinning charge
Ah! Yes!
But folks would be forced to admit that a point charge isn't - otherwise spinning a charge would be the same as 5 physicists changing a lightbulb.
One at the top of the ladder grasping the bulb and four grabbing the ladder legs, jumping and screaming 'Ok, somebody turn the building from the external frame of reference!'
ION,
The equator is the last place for the high speed run to cut flux lines. There the output would be null.
@exnihiloest
QuoteThere is only one cause for moving electrons: an electric field in which electrons are submitted to the force F=q*E and therefore creates a current. There is no other way.
That's only half the equation. Here's the complete one. ;)
F = q ( E + v X B)
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.08.19, 20:05:34
@exnihiloest
Quote
There is only one cause for moving electrons: an electric field in which electrons are submitted to the force F=q*E and therefore creates a current. There is no other way.
Quote
The greatest obstacle to progress in science is the illusion of knowledge, the illusion that we know what's going on when we really don't. ~Prof. Mike Disney
Regards
AC
I'm very impressed by allcanadian's scientific argumentation. May be he discovered a new force for putting an electron in motion and he want keep for himself the discovery ;D.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.20, 07:46:12
@exnihiloest
That's only half the equation. Here's the complete one. ;)
F = q ( E + v X B)
In any case, a magnetic field cannot be the cause for putting an electron in motion. It can only deviate a moving electron (without providing energy unlike the electric field which provides the energy for the electron to accelerate in the field).
I know the complete form of the Lorentz force. Your remark is irrelevant here. My post was relative to the context of induction which is the subject of the thread and where there is no already moving charges in the magnetic field: at the begining, electrons are at v=0 in the conductor, therefore q.v X B=0 whatever the magnetic field and we are left with F=q.E.
To put formulae from conventional physics but outside the context or the domain of validity and without explaining the physical phenomena they are related to, is useless.
Why induction from a physical viewpoint? A varying magnetic field implies that the electrons of the magnetic source are accelerating. Therefore their electric field is no more isotropic around them, question of relativity. At the position of the electrons at rest in the induced conductor, there is a non null resultant of this electric field (given by -dA/dt) generating an emf along a looped path. It is a real electric field E providing a force F=q.E but not deriving from a potential; it gives the physical explanation. It is straightforward. In other words the force onto electrons giving a current in an induced conductor is due to the electric field of the electrons of the magnetic source whose the acceleration reshapes the topology of their electric field by leaving a non null resultant at the position of the "induced electrons".
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.20, 11:01:35
To put formulae from conventional physics but outside the context or the domain of validity and without explaining the physical phenomena they are related to, is useless.
Please forgive me. I just wanted a copy of that statement :)
QuoteA varying magnetic field implies that the electrons of the magnetic source are accelerating.
Electrons are accelerating regardless, they go round and round under centripetal acceleration, so we are told. However, assuming we have a TIME INVARIANT non-uniform magnetic field in a stationary frame of reference, and our frame of reference is moving relative to this stationary one, we will see a changing magnetic field due to the spacial non-uniformity and our motion through this field, but the field is not time varying. So does this mean the "electrons of the magnetic source" are now all of a sudden accelerating just because we are moving? In other words, they see us moving and they say, yo, let's start accelerating, these dudes are coming! ;D :D
QuoteIt is straightforward. In other words the force onto electrons giving a current in an induced conductor is due to the electric field of the electrons of the magnetic source whose the acceleration reshapes the topology of their electric field by leaving a non null resultant at the position of the "induced electrons".
You really should make room for magnetic fields in your portfolio of physical concepts. And when you've managed that, than add frames of reference and relativity as well. >:-)
I'll go out on a limb, while being deliberately vague, and say that you can move particles by coupling to their charge or by coupling to their spin.
The the spin and the charge aspects can be separated, so it is reasonable that you can interact with either one, or both. The separation is called spin-charge separation and the electron is split into a spinon and a holon (chargon) (quasiparticles).
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.20, 16:54:59
Electrons are accelerating regardless, they go round and round under centripetal acceleration, so we are told. However, assuming we have a TIME INVARIANT non-uniform magnetic field in a stationary frame of reference, and our frame of reference is moving relative to this stationary one, we will see a changing magnetic field due to the spacial non-uniformity and our motion through this field, but the field is not time varying. So does this mean the "electrons of the magnetic source" are now all of a sudden accelerating just because we are moving? In other words, they see us moving and they say, yo, let's start accelerating, these dudes are coming! ;D :D
A "TIME INVARIANT non-uniform magnetic field in a stationary frame of reference" cannot put electrons in motion, otherwise a current would appear in any stationary conductor near a permanent magnet, and this is not observed.
Quote
You really should make room for magnetic fields in your portfolio of physical concepts. And when you've managed that, than add frames of reference and relativity as well. >:-)
You do still not understand that you can't attach a reference frame to a magnetic field. A field can't move. A field is not an object, it is a characterisation of a local property. When a magnet moves, the "moving field" is just an image: the field doesn't really move, it is only the field intensity that changes at the location we observe, depending on the motion of the field source. Relativity applies only to these quantities that an observer can measure or would measure if he was in another frame.
You should learn physics before giving lessons and saying others what they have to do. :P
Ex & EM,
I think we are at that familiar point where you are both saying the same thing from different perspectives, for the most part.
Ex,
EM was speaking of a static field of uneven shape being viewed by a viewer in motion around that static field. Frames of reference aside, that viewer would be seeing an apparent change in that static field. There would be induction even without an emf in that field. The only motion/change required is relative motion/change.
It is true you cannot associate a frame of reference to a field but you can to the space containing that field. This doesn't matter until the field is not some uniform shape appearing the same from all external points, as EM has suggested.
Grumpy,
Thanks for mentioning separation of spin and charge. I think this is where the rubber hits the road on what an electric current really is. It is clear that a current is not made of flowing electrons. It should be clear that current consists of charge transport. Since charge and spin(the electron?) can be separated, this makes current flow far more believable without always doing nuclear damage to the conductor.
Since charge may move much faster than the snail's crawl of a current induced electron we can continue with a realistic description of electric current flow.
Maybe this is a step to discovering what charge is and what a magnetic field really is?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.21, 12:07:46
...
Ex,
EM was speaking of a static field of uneven shape being viewed by a viewer in motion around that static field. Frames of reference aside, that viewer would be seeing an apparent change in that static field. There would be induction even without an emf in that field. The only motion/change required is relative motion/change.
It is true you cannot associate a frame of reference to a field but you can to the space containing that field. This doesn't matter until the field is not some uniform shape appearing the same from all external points, as EM has suggested.
...
WW, you get a good interpretation of what EM is saying.
I agree that you can associate a frame to a space containing a field, but contrarily to what EM suggests, you can't say that the field has a speed v relative to this frame, nor is at rest in this frame. You can only say that at point (x,y,z,t) of this space, the field intensity is B. B is a vector without speed.
It is a big misunderstanding to imagine a field with a speed i.e. to imagine a frame of reference in which the field would be "at rest". This misunderstanding leads to a false paradox in Faraday motor (V in F=q.VxB is relative to the observer, not to the field, so no paradox).
About the induction, a B field in "not some uniform shape" can't be the cause for an electron to move. If only a not uniform magnetic field in space could move an electron, then currents would appear in stationary circuits placed in areas near permanent magnets where there is a field gradient. This is not observed.
When an electron is at rest, in respect to its own reference frame in which it is at rest, none magnetic field can move it because V=0 so F=q.VxB=0, but only an electric field. For induction, this field is E=-dA/dt, therefore a
time variation is needed and from the viewpoint of the electron, the force it feels is F=q.E.
When an electron is not at rest (i.e. is moving at speed V relative to the frame of the observer, not of the magnetic field), then the observer see a force F=q.VxB acting onto the electron. But
the electron doesn't see the force F=q.VxB: from its own reference frame, it is still the electric field E=-dA/dt that it feels. Of course this is the two aspects of the same phenomenon of relativity, interpreted either in the reference frame of the electron (F=q.e with E=-dA/dt) or in the reference frame of an observer in which electron speed is V (F=q.VxB).
Naturally the viewpoint of the electron is the more interesting because it gives directly the causal explanation for it to move.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.21, 12:07:46
Since charge may move much faster than the snail's crawl of a current induced electron we can continue with a realistic description of electric current flow.
Maybe this is a step to discovering what charge is and what a magnetic field really is?
I'm sure it is.
Moving "spin" begets the magnetic field. So, create a macroscopic spin field and it will induce a current in a conductor. Like connecting to the wheel-work of nature.
;)
QuoteYou should learn physics before giving lessons and saying others what they have to do.
FYI: I have taken more electromagnetic classes in grad school than people take math classes in most science programs, and have used this knowledge to design many devices and the theory hasn't disappointed me yet, so that's why I'm commenting on this subject.
However, I can see that you have erroneous preconceived ideas which are hard to let go of because of your intellectual pride or inflexibility to learning new things, if indeed you've learned something correct the first time. So I suggest it is you who needs to learn physics and electrodynamics in particular before posting nonsense and foolishness. So many people come on these forums and think they know something, and this way so much crap is fed to the masses. Go read a book on electrodynamics and learn what I suggested for you and than we'll talk.
EM
Here's why you are confused Exnihiloest.
QuoteI agree that you can associate a frame to a space containing a field, but contrarily to what EM suggests, you can't say that the field has a speed v relative to this frame, nor is at rest in this frame.
Frames of reference are not associated to a SPACE, where did you learn that crap? Like I suggested get educated dude. Secondly, fields have a velocity.
If an electron is moving and it's field is not keeping up with it, what does that tell you? In ANY FRAME OF REFERENCE, (except accelerating ones, but we won't get into that yet since you haven't mastered the basics yet) the laws of electrodynamics hold just fine. Two electrons repel each other the same and Coulumbs law holds just fine. If the E fields did not keep up with these electrons, you wouldn't have this hold true.
QuoteIt is a big misunderstanding to imagine a field with a speed i.e. to imagine a frame of reference in which the field would be "at rest".
You can't even agree with what your saying, your two statements above are contradictory. If it's a "big misunderstanding" to imagine a moving field, than it should not be a big misunderstanding to "
imagine a frame of reference in which the field would be at rest." I think there's some dissonance in your head due to your limited knowledge of electrodynamics.
So according to your imaginary laws, if fields can't move, than there must be an ABSOLUTE frame of reference, correct? I have news for you, This has been disproved and that's what relativity is all about.
QuoteThis misunderstanding leads to a false paradox in Faraday motor (V in F=q.VxB is relative to the observer, not to the field, so no paradox).
Paradoxes exist for those that don't understand, however they are excellent opportunities to learn something new and more refined and improve existing theory.
QuoteWhen an electron is at rest, in respect to its own reference frame in which it is at rest, none magnetic field can move it because V=0 so F=q.VxB=0, but only an electric field. For induction, this field is E=-dA/dt, therefore a time variation is needed and from the viewpoint of the electron, the force it feels is F=q.E.
Like I said, F=qE is only half the equation. But let's work with your example here. FYI, I can move the electrons by moving a magnetic field across them, and it doesn't have to be non-uniform, it can be a UNIFORM magnetic field. You see it's all relative. the electron can be moving or the magnetic field. It's the relative motion that matters!
QuoteWhen an electron is not at rest (i.e. is moving at speed V relative to the frame of the observer, not of the magnetic field), then the observer see a force F=q.VxB acting onto the electron. But the electron doesn't see the force F=q.VxB: from its own reference frame,...
Do you think the electron cares WHO'S WATCH IT as a condition to DEVELOPING A FORCE OR NOT? Do you think an OBSERVER sees a FORCE on the electron, BUT THE ELECTRON DOES NOT? What kind of crap is that? Dude, if it moves relative to the magnetic field it will experience a force. Period! If not no force. So in your example, the electron moves but not relative to the magnetic field, so the magnetic field must be moving with it, so there is no force on it, no force EXPERIENCED BY THE ELECTRON AND NO FORCE PERCEIVED BY ANY OBSERVER. And by the way, forces are developed at 90 degrees to both the velocity and magnetic field, and an observer, moving or not, will see the side motion of the electron due to the force.
Exnihiloest, you are confused because you don't allow fields to move! Shame on you. ;D
EM
PS. By the way, when i say moving I mean TRANSLATION. In the Homopolar generator, the magnetic field is not ROTATING about it's axis of symmetry. This is what confuses lots of people. In this case spinning the magnet or coil generating the mag field, about the symmetry axis accomplishes nothing perceived.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.21, 15:31:54
I'm sure it is.
Moving "spin" begets the magnetic field. So, create a macroscopic spin field and it will induce a current in a conductor. Like connecting to the wheel-work of nature.
;)
induction without moving charges...
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.21, 18:07:17
...If an electron is moving and it's field is not keeping up with it
...
...and so on...
If you don't say in which reference frame the electron is moving, this is not physics.
The electron is always at rest in its own reference frame, therefore its field remains constant around it, provided that the electron is not accelerated (i.e. its reference frame is inertial).
From another frame where the electron is seen to move at constant speed, the field does not move more than in the first case, in virtue of the definition of what a field is: the characterisation of local conditions in space
independently of the source. What is going on is:
the field intensity decreases in space behind the electron and increases ahead.
Your assertions are so confused due to a fuzzy language that doesn't fit the science strictness, that you could even say that a thing is true and also the opposite. Something logic and constructive can't be built with such erratic and vague statements.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.21, 19:44:51
Quote
Moving "spin" begets the magnetic field. So, create a macroscopic spin field and it will induce a current in a conductor. Like connecting to the wheel-work of nature.
induction without moving charges...
The electrons don't move linearly, nevertheless they have to rotate to flip the spin.
How to rotate them without magnetic field in order we can recover their own magnetic flux (otherwise induction will be the result of the command field for the rotation)?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.22, 09:27:08
The electrons don't move linearly, nevertheless they have to rotate to flip the spin.
How to rotate them without magnetic field in order we can recover their own magnetic flux (otherwise induction will be the result of the command field for the rotation)?
What is the command field for the rotation?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.22, 14:03:23
What is the command field for the rotation?
That is my question... :)
How to have "induction without moving charges"? You suggested a "moving spin". It should work but how to move the spin? by sequentially flipping spins of stationary electrons? how?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.23, 09:35:52
That is my question... :)
How to have "induction without moving charges"? You suggested a "moving spin". It should work but how to move the spin? by sequentially flipping spins of stationary electrons? how?
When a conductor is connected to a source of potential, be it a ground connection or a positive terminal from a HV supply, the electrons are pointing in all directions, and as long as they point this way, there can be no current and no magnetic field. Once the necessary conditions are made for current to flow, by forming a complete circuit, the electrons align end to end and their spins are all the same direction (circular around the wire) and this creates the magnetic field around the wire in simple terms. If you apply this simple spin coupling approach to inductive devices such as generators, you will see that they all work this way, and Lenz's Law is always evident, and they cannot be OU. Even the homopolar generator obey's Lenz's Law.
When the conductor is pulsed, the change in spin direction is communicated to the space around the wire and anything in this space, and other spins align to the spin of the wire's electrons. By placing several coils in a ring, and pulsing them sequentially, you can flip the spins of a conductor placed around the coils.
Another option might be that a time-dependent electric impulse (these are treated as an indepenedent force) creates charges from the vacuum of virtual charges, and these are moved by the impulse and not by a magnetic field.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.23, 13:55:05
...
By placing several coils in a ring, and pulsing them sequentially, you can flip the spins of a conductor placed around the coils.
I agree. But what we need is the contrary: to recover in coils the effect of a spin flip. The cause can't also be the effect.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.23, 20:40:05
Another option might be that a time-dependent electric impulse (these are treated as an indepenedent force) creates charges from the vacuum of virtual charges, and these are moved by the impulse and not by a magnetic field.
Well this is a more satisfying reply about the principle. Now how an electric impulse can flip the spins of virtual electric charges? What kind of force could exert this torque?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.24, 06:55:41
I agree. But what we need is the contrary: to recover in coils the effect of a spin flip. The cause can't also be the effect.
Well this is a more satisfying reply about the principle. Now how an electric impulse can flip the spins of virtual electric charges? What kind of force could exert this torque?
Yesterday, I accepted the cold hard fact that a force cannot "create" excess energy, but only applies what it is. I know one can induce current by applying forces, but this can never be in excess. So, I am looking for the source again. I had dismissed particle creation on a layman's bench as impossible, but now, I think it is possible.
The coil I am experimenting with, pulsed with 4kv DC, 2ns rise/fall, 2ns duration produces an "attractive force" that affects all materials, with heavier materials attracted more than lighter ones. This may prove to be a charge-independent force, like gravity, but this has not been verified with charged objects. So, is speculative.
It is known that a coil such as this, pulsed in such a way, can produce a charge on conductive materials. This seems to be a surface charge, possible by diffusion of particles produced from the vacuum, by the impulsed field of the coil. Are particles really produced, or it is some otehr mechanism?
Yet another possibility is that the virtual particles when ordered and in motion, can induce current.
QuoteNow how an electric impulse can flip the spins of virtual electric charges? What kind of force could exert this torque?
The virtual particles are the fields. Won't an electric field align the virtual particles, perhaps even pull them apart?
===============================
EDIT:
The quest for alternative, fueless energy, comes down to a very basic question: Can energy be created?
If we say "No", then our efforts are in vain, for you cannot get more out than you put in without some source for the additional energy.
If we say "Yes", we have hope, and a lot of work to do.
Anyone arbotrarily saying that energy cannot be created, must be able to answer: "How did the universe begin in the first place?" If there was a Big Bang, then where did this matter come from? How did it come to exist? If matter and energy are interchangable, then how can either just pop into existence to create a universe?
So, if energy can be created, how might this be accomplished?
@Grumpy
QuoteThe quest for alternative, fueless energy, comes down to a very basic question: Can energy be created?
If we say "No", then our efforts are in vain, for you cannot get more out than you put in without some source for the additional energy.
If we say "Yes", we have hope, and a lot of work to do.
I think the question always relates fundamentally to "what" energy is?, nothing as silly as the properties of mass, force, velocity or momentum because properties are appearances which give no real indication of what is occurring on the most fundamental level relatively speaking. For example I am sitting in the middle of an empty parking lot and I hold my arm out and space my fingers one inch apart, what is in that one inch space? Some might say nothing, some might same air, some might say light and many other forms of EM energy but most would agree the energy in this space is very small. However energy is a relative term because it always relates fundamentally to the properties of the space it occupies and since the Earth is spinning at around 1000mph if I could cause what is in this "space" between my fingers to grab hold of the "space" it occupies then what is in this "space" could be considered as stationary thus it would accelerate away from me at 1000mph plus the velocity of our solar system at 570,000mph.
In this case we could assume any space has an infinite potential but the tangible things we know have limited or no interaction with the space they occupy but this is not to say external standing waves which may occupy any given space could not interact with particles giving the appearance of motion, does a particle have velocity when it is bound to a standing wave intrinsic to the space it occupies which means it is stationary?, is it moving or are we?.
As such I do not believe we have an energy crisis nor a lack of energy anywhere, what we have is a major problem with understanding what energy is on the most fundamental level and how it relates to us in reality. At this point in time everything reduces to some kind of magical virtual particles popping into and out of existence from apparently nowhere which is not really an indication that we understand anything, lol, such is life.
Regards
AC
I just come today across a new paper at arXiv: "Faraday's Lines of Force as Strings" (http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/1108.5094). The formalism is a bit complicated but it is not my point to discuss it here.
My interest is only in the idea: the electric or magnetic lines of flux are considered by the author as physical strings of quantum particles. Each charge generates a string. A string is a real object linked to a charge and obeing a dynamics. The very large number of strings follows the rules of thermodynamics.
The classical electrodynamics becomes simply a statistical view of dynamical objects: the field lines as real strings, which is the view that had Faraday with whom I now totally agree. The field lines are not virtual equipotential lines of a continuous field, but discrete strings whose the number is as important as the number of charges generating them, and that we can treat statistically.
When we speak about a "varying flux cutting a surface", we must think about a changing number of discrete lines cutting the surface and therefore cutting also the conductor that delimits the surface. This gives a physical sense to induction, which can be seen as an interaction of the strings with the charges in the induced conductor.