Restated here so Bruce TPU Christmas Gift thread is not derailed
Conjecture:
Besides being magnetic dipoles, electrons have also another important property......inertia. (see Tolman-Stewart experiments). In a circuit that rings as in Itsu's very nice scope capture we see the effect of ringing i.e. we have an impulse and electrons slosh back and forth wasting the impulse energy by radiating it into space at the high ringing frequency. Energy is also wasted in frictional losses in the wire and components.
While most have been trying to achieve better "resonance" and high Q circuits, it may be the very thing we need to avoid!.
If the inductive effects and ringing could be nullified or eliminated as far as possible, each impulse could (by proper circuit arrangement) be made to propel the electrons in one direction only, gaining speed with each impulse, and putting what energy would have been wasted to good use. More powerful impulses in a ringing (tank) circuit only increase the amplitude of oscillation, they do not appreciably change the frequency nor the speed of electrons, which are determined by the L-C components e.g. in Bruce's circuit, stray capacitance and inductance.
What also would be needed is a circular "racetrack" for the electrons and a means of nullifying the effects of the earth magnetic field. The earth magnetic field creates the unwanted incorrect alignment of electrons in the wire "racetrack" because of the electrons magnetic properties.
The earth magnetic field can be easily overcome with a toroidal overwinding on the "racetrack" wire and a weak DC current applied.
What is needed is a head to toe alignment of the electron's magnetic poles in the wire. The electrons can then find preferred pathways in the wire, minimizing wasteful collisions.
As the electrons are accelerated, there will always be a number of unwanted wasteful collisions with nuclei that will produce a heating effect in the wire. This is unavoidable.
These unwanted collisions will result in a sudden braking effect on the electron (bremsstrahlung) with the attendant release of electromagnetic radiation.
Quote
QuoteBremsstrahlung is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron by an atomic nucleus. The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy.
Thus far energy has been conserved, however the accelerated electrons may also provide an avalanche effect within the wire, providing a cascade of otherwise bound electrons to be released. And perhaps even those released photons can be put to good use.
This could result in a transmutation effect within the copper atoms of the wire, converting to isotopes of copper with large energy release.
So we may have built a tabletop high speed particle accelerator (an energy conversion device), and enjoy the benefits thereof.
The title was "conjecture", but was inspired by a very careful reading of SM's emails to Mannix. Even if SM was a fraud, he caused me to "ponder" in a different direction. Science fiction?...maybe.
Comments welcome but please stay on topic
Interesting stuff. I wonder if the spinning coil charge seen at the ends is actually due to inertia or an action of say earths field on the spinning coil? Just from what Im imagining at this time.
How in your opinion would this relate to Turbos 3 coils? Just trying to get your drift. ;)
Mags
Turbo said he was taking the subject elsewhere. Does anyone know where that might be?
Sucks that he opened the door then closed it soon after. He seemed to come down on Bruce for his sparse givings but then does the same.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2018.01.17, 00:33:26
Interesting stuff. I wonder if the spinning coil charge seen at the ends is actually due to inertia or an action of say earths field on the spinning coil? Just from what Im imagining at this time.
How in your opinion would this relate to Turbos 3 coils? Just trying to get your drift. ;)
Mags
Tolman and Stewart took great pains to null out the earth magnetic field's possible influence, especially in the second set of experiments performed later with a rotating cylinder. I don't recall the exact method of the second set of experiments, having read it many years ago nevertheless, the inertial effect was not due to earth field.
SM said
Quote80. Now electrons can travel only so fast along the surface of a wire because of the magnetic flux.
What if you disable the effect of the flux? My unit operates on these principles. Now the electrons float freely without anything holding them back. Electrons at the speed of light are now a possibility.
.
Some NMR experiments use DC biased coils to homogenize earth magnetic field influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_coil
QuoteIn some applications, a Helmholtz coil is used to cancel out the Earth's magnetic field, producing a region with a magnetic field intensity much closer to zero.[4]
http://www.teachspin.com/earth-s-field-nmr-gradient-field-coil-system.html
In other modes they can also provide a null effect of the earth field.
A relatively weak DC bias is used to create the zone. The complex looking instrument in the second link allows precise control of the field gradients by precisely setting and regulating the DC current through the coils.
The inner and outer coils in Turbo's offering might create the "null zone or homogeneous zone" if biased properly such that zone of interest appears on the inner wire spool of the coil sandwich.
That's my conjecture thus far. More to come.
Regards
See the attachment
SM comments on the collector and how it is wound:
QuoteAbout the collector:
It is three separate coils of multi strand copper wire laid one on top of the other, not interleaved. Three is important. You can do many things with three coils. You can run them in parallel, you can run two in series and one in parallel, or etc.
You can run a separate frequency into each coil for better control on large power units if need be.
The control wiring is vertically wound in several segments around each of the horizontal collector coils.
Other control wires are wound around all of the horizontal collector coils together.
Through the different control wire and coil wire arrangements you can keep complete control of the unit most of the time. However, you must have an emergency KILL switch. A way of cutting off all the control frequencies simultaneity. This kill switch must be, manual and also connected through a heat sensor buried within the collector coil. it should automatically stop the function of the unit before it self destructs on it's own. This is important for obvious reasons. Also the kill switch should also be connected to cut off whenever it measures over voltage. If that should ever happen, you would never have enough time to hit the kill switch before the inevitable explosion occurred.
You know, it is very similar to the idea of a long garden hose. Picture a hose with water in it. If you pick up one end and move along the length of the hose you will move the water constantly along in the direction you are moving. You could also squeeze the hose in the direction to move the water along as well. And you could do both to control the movement of the water more precisely. You can think of the movement of water as the movement of electrons through the collector coils.
This appears to match what was shown in the TPU that was cut into pieces.
My take is that the collectors are individual copper loops, with the control wires wrapped around them, and then stacked on top of each other to make a stack of three collectors.
I doubt the "collector" operates as a collector of anything, but offer that it is probably induced rather than the outer coils being urged to release electrons and the collector catching them.
If you go back to the original discovery that SM made with a bifilar voice coil and a speaker magnet, there is nothing there that should cause electrons to be released. the delayed signal, in combination with the leading signal, interacted with the magnet to release some sort of signal that SM interpreted as additional energy.
Based on the work that Peter did with his delayed signal into a bifilar coil, (around 220ns as I recall), this arrangement produces a sharp voltage spike.
If you apply HV pulses to a magnet with a coil, the magnet will react violently.
Hi G
There is much that I agree with that you have written. I'm trying to develop the "highly accelerated electrons" model in this thread because I think it can explain several factors including the weak gyroscopic action purported to have been witnessed,
This hypothesis also gives some credence to the excessive heating of the device, far more than can be developed with a hidden startup battery. I ran tests on this some years ago with lamp wire wound as in the open tpu and found that an excess of 10 amperes were required to provide the heating slightly warm to the touch.
The only other method that could develop the weak gyroscopic effect would be an acoustic ring resonator, but I tried years to develop the hypothesis for this to little avail.
The development of high speed electrons in a copper collector could release photons, knock out neutrons, thus creating isotopes of copper along with a cascade of electrons. This mild transmutation of copper could account for the excess heating and possible meltdown that SM was always so very concerned about.
Attempting to develop a hypothesis for such a tabletop particle accelerator is not easy and I lack the physics skills to prove it's possibility. I'm merely trying to use my own intuition and as many of the clues as possible that fit into such further conjecture.
A hypothesis must ,as a minimum, satisfy the following observations by many of TPU operation:
1) Anomalous heat production that could lead to self destruction (many orders of magnitude greater than any required startup power)
2) Production of anomalous electrical power in large quantities (hundreds of Watts, also much greater than startup power)
3) A weak gyroscopic effect (only possible by actual rotating mass or by a rotating mass displacement (as in acoustic wave).
4) A noticeable "stiction" effect when moved through the earth magnetic field, gravity, or space (not sure which)
5) A slow windup or rotation of something that has mass.
Regards
I don't want to derail your particle accelerator model thread.
Excessive external forces could pull the molecules apart. As I recall the Russian gentleman with the TPU-like device that used copper sheet on the outside had issues with the copper coils transmuting to other elements, as well as overheating.
SM mention tuning "too precisely" as a bad thing to do as it converted too much power in the device. (as I recall)
Turbo said that Sm used a layer of thin cork board between layers of coils. Can be had at a grocery store for use on counter tops and cupboard liners. So im going to make this coil deal and do some things. Any suggestions as to what to try are welcome. Will post a pic when done.
Mags
In an effort to guess the thoughts of SM when he discovered the bifilar coil arrangement i came up with the following:
1. SM discovered the bifliar arrangement with one signal delayed and it affected other objects to some degree. This is rather vague, but not much else to go on. Peter showed that it produced a crackling noise that sounded like mini explosions.
2. If SM thought that electrons were being ejected from the coils, then it is logical that use of a "collector" would capture them.
3. With this same train of thought, SM probably tried to use several coils over a collector in various ways, expecting the electrons to build up on the collector and be drawn off to drive a load. This may have resulted in the early models that rely on Earth forces to create the rotation needed.
4. We do not know if the early units had sequential coils or a forced sequential order, but SM mentions that they rotate the other way in the southern hemisphere.
4. In an effort to improve the early devices, so they work in any orientation, he may considered driving the electrons sequentially to force them to go the right direction. This made the devices always rotate the way you wanted them to, but did not remedy the flipping-over aspect.
5. Thinking that the devices somehow coupled to the earths magnetic field, SM may have tried his own bias field with a coil around the collector. Logically, you would try this from power supplied by the output of the device.
(This is just speculation to guess how SM got from the initial unexpected signal on his analyzer to a working TPU and may be totally incorrect.)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2018.01.18, 21:03:44
In an effort to guess the thoughts of SM when he discovered the bifilar coil arrangement i came up with the following:
1. SM discovered the bifliar arrangement with one signal delayed and it affected other objects to some degree. This is rather vague, but not much else to go on. Peter showed that it produced a crackling noise that sounded like mini explosions.
2. If SM thought that electrons were being ejected from the coils, then it is logical that use of a "collector" would capture them.
3. With this same train of thought, SM probably tried to use several coils over a collector in various ways, expecting the electrons to build up on the collector and be drawn off to drive a load. This may have resulted in the early models that rely on Earth forces to create the rotation needed.
4. We do not know if the early units had sequential coils or a forced sequential order, but SM mentions that they rotate the other way in the southern hemisphere.
4. In an effort to improve the early devices, so they work in any orientation, he may considered driving the electrons sequentially to force them to go the right direction. This made the devices always rotate the way you wanted them to, but did not remedy the flipping-over aspect.
5. Thinking that the devices somehow coupled to the earths magnetic field, SM may have tried his own bias field with a coil around the collector. Logically, you would try this from power supplied by the output of the device.
(This is just speculation to guess how SM got from the initial unexpected signal on his analyzer to a working TPU and may be totally incorrect.)
Cracking sound. Hmm
If we were to have a coil that say was operating at freq that caused skin effect, and the wire is insulated, rubberized or enamel magnet wire, could the electrons escape the insulation of the wire to be captured at a lower than insulation breakdown voltage?? Not saying skin effect is an action of SMs coils as I dont know that much about his particulars just like most of us, but just thinking on the electrons escaping the surface of the wire in general as an example of such. Or maybe if the electrons can escape by jolting or 'kicking' lots of them off the wire at a point in time and they make it to the collector, could that be the cracking sound that was heard?
Going to give a go with the coils using a material between layers i have here and I will build another with cork this weekend. So Il have the 2 to compare with each try of whateverI or we come up with.
Mags
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEc7r3rjNlk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOsgRPhlVB8
The second video is like much of what has already been tried many times, replacing the ball and circular tube track with the collector coil. (Otto etc.) but with no reported effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_hirIK9eFs
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkBaOhyZMKk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06vG4GUuck
Also a lot of good videos by Fermilab
A lot to chew on, but the idea is to imagine what could happen if the vacuum tube could be replaced with a circular copper conductor. There is a lot of space (99.9999999..% empty) between atoms and a "free electron gas" loosely fills some of that space ......that we can work with.
QuoteWhat makes copper a good conductor...Yahoo Answers:
The atomic number of copper is 29, which means it has 29 protons in the middle and 29 electrons moving around the outside. (The 29 negative charges of the electrons and the 29 positive charges of the protons balance out, so the atom is neutral when all of its electrons are in place.)
Copper has two electrons in the innermost shell, eight in the next shell, eighteen in the third shell, and one in the fourth shell. This means that the first three shells each have as many electrons as they can hold, and the fourth shell has one lonely electron. (The fourth shell can hold up to 32 electrons.) Because this one lonely electron is all by itself in the outer shell, it can easily separate from the rest of the atom and go roaming around, which makes copper a very good conductor.
QuoteCopper has 29 orbiting electrons. 28 of then are fixed to the atom in their respective orbits. The 29th is a "free" electron and wanders throughout the metal.
The atoms in copper vibrate around a fixed position, with 28
of their electrons orbiting around them.
The spaces between the atoms are filled with the "free" electrons - one from each atom. They collide with each other, and other atoms, and behave like the particles of a gas, i.e. they have random (chaotic) motion.
However, when a potential difference is applied across the
copper, as well as moving at random at high speed as before, they also "drift" very slowly towards the +ve
terminal. (An electrical current flows very slowly).
An electrical current is just the slow drift of free electrons in those materias which have free electrons.
If there are no free electrons, then there is no current.
Fewer free electrons means a smaller current ( i.e more electrical resistance, like Nichrome.)
Insulators can often be made to conduct. Although they normally have few free electrons, or none, the application of a large enough voltage will forcibly remove outer electrons from atoms, and make then "free".
From my earlier post:
QuoteThe development of high speed electrons in a copper collector could release photons, knock out neutrons, thus creating isotopes of copper along with a cascade of electrons. This mild transmutation of copper could account for the excess heating and possible meltdown that SM was always so very concerned about.
So we are also interested in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_copper
Normally, electrons must be accelerated in a high VACUUM, to avoid collisions with matter which slow them down.
ION, are you saying that you might have a scheme to achieve "electron acceleration" in a wire? in a metal?
I'm interested... how would you determine whether you achieved this effect?? (I mean, directly - as opposed to "heating" effects which could be due to different things it seems.)
About transmutations - there is a LOT of interest in this right now - see in particular the work by Iwamura in Japan, using deuterons passing through various metals and somehow inducing transmutations. I think his data are quite convincing, but require Deuterons.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.01.19, 17:22:46
Normally, electrons must be accelerated in a high VACUUM, to avoid collisions with matter which slow them down.
ION, are you saying that you might have a scheme to achieve "electron acceleration" in a wire? in a metal?
I'm interested... how would you determine whether you achieved this effect?? (I mean, directly - as opposed to "heating" effects which could be due to different things it seems.)
About transmutations - there is a LOT of interest in this right now - see in particular the work by Iwamura in Japan, using deuterons passing through various metals and somehow inducing transmutations. I think his data are quite convincing, but require Deuterons.
Dear PhysicsProf
Thanks for noticing this thread.
No, I don't yet have the scheme for accelerating electrons in a copper conductor, and I do realise the need for a vacuum for a frictionless "collision free" acceleration.
However if it were possible to accelerate electrons in an ordinary copper conductor, there would certainly be excess heating effects due to collisions, which is one of the things which constantly worried Steve Mark about his device, so much so that he urged replicators to include a method of shutting down if the temperature got too high to prevent a runaway condition.
He remarked that if tuned too precisely, a meltdown would occur.
Most would say the "mean free path" of electrons in a conductor is very slow. But maybe there are ways around this.
It is my unproven belief that acceleration pulses could force electrons to find preferred pathways as they accelerate and make their way through the mostly empty space, avoiding collisions where possible as atoms are very slightly displaced. This is the "windup effect" SM referred to.
In this thread I am trying to fit a hypothetical model to the main 5 observed effects of the TPU as outlined here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3584.msg66489#msg66489
Because SM was forced to meet with his lawyer, a government representative and
a member of the AEC, I am guessing that his device was indeed a "conversion" device as he often referred to it.
To answer your question about how I would tell if it is working? Answer: If it meets all five of the criteria outlined in the link along with other possible tests to detect particle output.
Maybe read this thread from the beginning if you haven't already done so to get an idea of the outline of the hypothesis.
Thanks for replying. I will check out Iwamura's work.
Regards
P.S the next few posts will deal with further clues SM has given and how they may apply towards a working model.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.01.19, 17:22:46
Normally, electrons must be accelerated in a high VACUUM, to avoid collisions with matter which slow them down.
ION, are you saying that you might have a scheme to achieve "electron acceleration" in a wire? in a metal?
Although the drift velocity of conduction electrons is small due to those collisions, it may be noted that if there are electrons drawn to the surface (i.e. the wire is one electrode of a capacitor where the other electrode is at a high positive potential) then there is a thin surface region where the ion density is much reduced and the drift speed there can increase tremendously. Don't know whether this phenomenon has ever been measured but it strikes me that highly polished smooth surfaces could exhibit relatively long collision-free paths. Just a thought.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.01.19, 20:09:03
Although the drift velocity of conduction electrons is small due to those collisions, it may be noted that if there are electrons drawn to the surface (i.e. the wire is one electrode of a capacitor where the other electrode is at a high positive potential) then there is a thin surface region where the ion density is much reduced and the drift speed there can increase tremendously. Don't know whether this phenomenon has ever been measured but it strikes me that highly polished smooth surfaces could exhibit relatively long collision-free paths. Just a thought.
Smudge
Barbat has been working with thin conductive films on the surface of insulators to attain high speed.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=457.0
I don't know whether he has had any luck, but your comment about drawing the electrons to the surface of the wire is very interesting and I would encourage experimenters to try something along those lines. We can apply a HV differential bias to the collector and some outer foil or overwinding. Next we need a means to propel the electrons along the surface. SM we know used very sharp pulses to perform the acceleration. But how are these "kicks" applied?
Conventional wisdom says the mean free path does not allow for high speed electrons in a conductor, however SM gave us this additional clue to chew on:
Quote84. I want you to think of the generator principles the exact same way that passing the sound barrier was accomplished.
Read how engineers in this country finally developed the proper wing design to accomplish supersonic speed in aircraft. I hope it will give you a picture of what is going on inside the generator and especially the collector
Quote84. I want you to think of the generator principles the exact same way that passing the sound barrier was accomplished.
Read how engineers in this country finally developed the proper wing design to accomplish supersonic speed in aircraft. I hope it will give you a picture of what is going on inside the generator and especially the collector
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-085-DFRC.html
The Army Air Forces selected Bell Aircraft to build three X-1 aircraft. The fuselage was the same shape as a 0.50 caliber machine gun bullet, which was known to be stable at supersonic speeds. The X-1 wings were straight, rather than swept back, and relatively thin for the time. The X-1-1 (serial number 46-062) had a wing with an 8 percent thickness/chord ratio. The X-1-2 (serial number 46-063) had a 10 percent ratio wing. The X-1 was powered by an XLR-11 rocket engine, which had four chambers and burned liquid oxygen (LOX) and a mixture of alcohol and water. In 1945, rockets were viewed with suspicion by some engineers. Both the NACA and Navy preferred a jet-powered research aircraft, rather than one using a rocket, as the Army Air Forces had selected.
The foam material i tried last night has issues with keeping the windings right.
Picked this up today at the grocery store. Im sure home depot may have it also. Just over $3 for 12in x 4ft x 1/16in. Self stick also.
Mags
Thanks for your replies, ION and Smudge.
Certainly a very interesting thread.
As an intro to Iwamura's transmutation work: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.01.20, 13:59:02
Thanks for your replies, ION and Smudge.
Certainly a very interesting thread.
As an intro to Iwamura's transmutation work: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/
And thank you for the New Energy Times link, it has some good downloads at the bottom of the page worth reading.
As you already know, I am very interested in the LENR field of study of which the subject of this thread is a different branch of LENR.
I regard the Iwamura and other LENR devices as "absorption transmutation ", whereas we are going to explore the "particle accelerator transmutation" method for our own musing and as one possible explanation for the SM TPU.
Thanks for alerting us to the Iwamura results. According to the article some undisclosed "major corporations" are also showing interest in this.
Regards
Ok. Just winging it, here is the 3 coils layered with cork as Turbo suggested. 70 turns each of Radioshack green rolls of magnet wire I had laying around. I believe it is 26awg.
Didnt know how far a roll will go, and figuring in the additional length as each layer diameter increases, I stopped at 70 turns where a full roll came close to 90 on the first wind. So made the adjustment then.
Will put terminals on tomorrow. As the inner winding is sandwiched in cork, I put an outer layer of cork after the 3rd winding.
Mags
Interesting, Arie Degeus stated that electrons move much faster, without resistance when the conductor is very thin, a few atoms, well maybe if the frequency was carefully selected then maybe the skin effect would allow the current to only flow in the outside layer 1 atom thick.
'Cyclotron'-electron accelerator on Zero point energy.
A method and equipment, wherein "free" electrons, are being accelerated in (a) thin conductor(s), in which in sections an alternating-voltage with increasing amplitude is effectuated by means of surrounding permanent-magnetic fields, in such a way that their kinetic energy is sufficient to overcome a rectifying threshold to be able to charge a direct current storage; this using a "signal"-generator, of which the energy needed is obtained from the energy produced.
7. A Method and Equipment, as in any of the preceding conclusions, wherein a thin coating of an excellent electron conductor is applied to said conductor(s).
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2469.0;attach=14041
I think it would be better if we could get the electrons in a thick conductor to move faster from end to end than to rely on skin effect of very fine conductors, to say get the electrons to move faster than its resistance allows.
To me it would be natural for electrons to move slower from end to end in a thicker conductor than a thin conductor, given they are operating under the same current flow input. Like a 4in dia hose with water compared to a 1in dia hose.
If we talk about the speed of electrons in the conductor, Id say the speed of the jump from one atom to another is probably the same for each. A thicker conductor, depending on the current flow, not all of the electrons get from one end of the conductor to the other as fast as a thin conductors electrons.
Not sure what I might find with this coil configuration. My first guess would be the outer coils are input and the middle coil is output.
Bruce suggests making electrons(magnets) jump off the wire and we could collect them.? :-\ Im not sure that could be advantageous. Collect them for what? If the 'wire' gives off electrons and they are collected, then what becomes of the 'wire's' depleted state once the released electrons are collected? Is it a form of an efficient generator? Converter? Im interested, but Bruces way of showing halts me a bit.
Mags
So far it works as a 2/1 transformer using the 2 outer layers in series and the middle coil as an open output. Will see if things change if I load the middle coil.
Mags
In certain electronic devices which are able to accelerate
the "speed" of electrons the result is power loss as
excess heat.
What are the supposed advantages of increasing the
"speed" of electrons in a solid conductor? Why wouldn't
the end result there be power loss as excess heat?
We already know that very high current levels in a
small wire do, in fact, produce large amounts of
heat and power loss. Couldn't this be said to be
due to faster electron movement?
The Magnetron, the Klystron and the Traveling Wave Tube
all rely on very fast electrons to accomplish their "magic"
but there too, the power loss as heat from decelerating
electrons is still a significant figure.
Quote from: muDped on 2018.01.30, 00:36:05
In certain electronic devices which are able to accelerate
the "speed" of electrons the result is power loss as
excess heat.
What are the supposed advantages of increasing the
"speed" of electrons in a solid conductor? Why wouldn't
the end result there be power loss as excess heat?
We already know that very high current levels in a
small wire do, in fact, produce large amounts of
heat and power loss. Couldn't this be said to be
due to faster electron movement?
The Magnetron, the Klystron and the Traveling Wave Tube
all rely on very fast electrons to accomplish their "magic"
but there too, the power loss as heat from decelerating
electrons is still a significant figure.
Hi muDped
Agreed, this is Ohm's law and expressed very well here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
We see then that drift velocity of electrons is exceedingly small with an applied current, on the order of micrometers per second or centemeters per hour and is proportional to current.
QuoteTherefore in this wire the electrons are flowing at the rate of 23 μm/s. At 60 Hz alternating current, this means that within half a cycle the electrons drift less than 0.2 μm. In other words, electrons flowing across the contact point in a switch will never actually leave the switch.
By comparison, the Fermi flow velocity of these electrons (which, at room temperature, can be thought of as their approximate velocity in the absence of electric current) is around 1570 km/s.[2]
So it appears that current flow actually puts the brakes hard on the normal flow velocity, leaving only a proportionately small creepage that we term the drift velocity.
In reply # 3 on this page we are given an important quote by SM. It is worth pondering and can lead to new insights into the nature of the dilemma and how to overcome it.
We were also reminded by SM that moving electrons close to light speed is the catalyst, a means to an end and not the end in itself.
We are looking for the "end" result when "catalyst" is achieved! But we need to take the proper steps to get the electrons accelerated to "catalyst".
Even with the flux nulled, there will be excess heat due to the sheer number of possible random collisions. It is then easy to see why the "heat problem" of the device was also a necessary by product of reaching "catalyst".
It is important to ponder what arrangement the electrons actually take in a wire that has a current flow. We can get an idea by
examining the field on the outside of the wire. Then the electrons tiny dipoles will align with those concentric field lines inside the wire much as the compass does on the outside of the wire.
Now, what arrangement do the electrons take when the flux is "nulled"? And what is their possible velocity?
Regards
The Fermi velocity is not unidirectional and cannot be likened to current flow. Conduction electrons travel at Fermi velocity between atoms but they then lose that velocity when they crash into the next atom (crash is the wrong term to use but it will do here). So electrons zig-zag about in all directions at this high velocity and that is thermal noise that results in zero average drift. Under the influence of an externally applied electric field you then get that well known drift velocity that we know as current flow. Good picture here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html)
Smudge
SM was trying to understand how his device worked, and explain it in terms that would not get him in trouble, based on his own knowledge of electrons which primarily came from his work with vacuum tubes.
His quote:
Quote80. Now electrons can travel only so fast along the surface of a wire because of the magnetic flux.
What if you disable the effect of the flux? My unit operates on these principles. Now the electrons float freely without anything holding them back. Electrons at the speed of light are now a possibility.
He says "when you
disable the effects of the flux", implying that the velocity limiting effect of magnetic flux is eliminated, allowing for increased electron velocity and he probably thought this accounted for the energy gain seen in his devices.
This is his own interpretation based on his own knowledge, a hypothesis, not proven fact.
With that said, the goal at hand is to
make electrons flow by using less "power" than the power that can be derived from their motion.To achieve this end we have to make the electrons move, as a current,
without using known methods of induction that we know do not result in gain beyond the power applied.So, which forces do we have at our disposal that influence electrons? Coulomb force, Magnetism, gravity, Lorentz force (electric field and magnetic field together)
Any other forces that we can use?
I think it is important why and how it is related to the mentioned by SM effect on vacuum tube filament and Earth magnetic field.
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.01.31, 09:36:25
The Fermi velocity is not unidirectional and cannot be likened to current flow. Conduction electrons travel at Fermi velocity between atoms but they then lose that velocity when they crash into the next atom (crash is the wrong term to use but it will do here). So electrons zig-zag about in all directions at this high velocity and that is thermal noise that results in zero average drift. Under the influence of an externally applied electric field you then get that well known drift velocity that we know as current flow. Good picture here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html)
Smudge
I understand your explanation and what is stated in the supplied link.
Thanks
QuoteI will continue the thread when I finally figure out how to run the experiment, and I will try to prove that the very act of a substantial current through a wire instantly suspends the free high "potential" velocity of electrons and what is left is the slow "drift velocity". Current therefore can only be allowed to flow if it is nulled out by an equal but opposite flow e.g. a zone at the center between the conductors of lampcord (as used by SM) or going through the center to the end of a co-axial cable and back along the outside.
We see this (the coaxial cable) configuration in one of the Tariel Kapanadze devices. This may be the secret that has been under our noses but we have failed to recognize.......that the harder we pump current the more we pin the electrons in place because this action of the flux thus dooms so many of our experiments to failure. Nulling the flux with an equal but opposite flow frees the electrons to move at high speed once again. SM said it very clearly and we all seemed to have missed the point.
There are other factors, but I believe the earth magnetic field plays only a minor role and can also easily be nulled out.
Just copied your post from TKs thread ION--hope thats ok.
After much thinking and experimenting,i believe that the magnetic field produced around a conductor when current starts to flow through it,is actually impeding the current flow-or flow of electrons. I mentioned this on OU.com some time back,and well-no need to say what the reaction was from most.
I stated that the magnetic field produced by the flow of current through a conductor,is an unwanted bi-product,
It would seem to me,after reading what you have posted,that we agree on this-->are we on the same page?
I also agree that the earths magnetic field plays a very small roll,in fact,i do not even think it is worth worrying about once we exceed 10mA of current flow through a conductor/conducting wire,as the magnetic field produced around the wire would cancel out any influence by the earths magnetic field.
I believe that the magnetic field produced around the wire is in opposition to that of the direction the electrons want/are made to flow. The end result is heat,due to magnetic friction.
We can see this easily when we hold a magnet close to a spinning conductive disk,such as copper or aluminum.
In both cases we have electrons moving through an external magnetic field,and that magnetic field impedes the motion of the electrons-->so would it be accurate to say that eddy currents are produced within the conductive wire,when a current is passed through it?
Anyway,i would like to tag along for the ride here ION,and see if we can integrate my high speed collision idea with what you come up with here.
To many times we deal with fle power measurements,and this time i would like to be dealing with 10's of watts at least.
Brad
Ok,here is an experiment i did a couple of weeks ago(which i re-ran tonight for this thread),and thought it may be related to this topic-as far as i understand. This is just a very basic experiment,but none the less,it showed me the results i was hoping for.
First up,is it true to say that the higher the value of current flow,the faster the electrons are moving through the wire,when that wire remains the same size(same wire)?,as it is the moving electrons that create current flow-right?
Anyway,the pictures below show my test setup,and it is as follows.
I have a toroid transformer,which is being driven by my variac at it's lowest voltage setting,and is across the 240v winding of the toroid transformer.
I then have a soft iron wire loop looped around the toroid transformer,where the loop passes through the middle of the hole in the transformer. I used soft iron wire in the hope of making the wire itself one long conductive magnet. This is to counter the magnetic field that would be built up around the wire when current was flowing through it,as it is my belief that the magnetic field around a current carrying conductor impedes the electron flow.
Around that soft iron wire i have wound insulated copper wire,which i will call the field winding.
A DC current is then passed through the field winding in order to produce a magnetic field that is at 90* to that of the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the soft iron wire loop.
The soft iron wire loop includes my .1 ohm CVR-as seen in the pictures below.
So,the single turn loop has an alternating current flowing through it,and the field coil has a direct current flowing through it.
The scope is placed across the .1 ohm CVR.
My theory was,once a direct current was flowing through the field winding,we should see an offset in the AC trace across the CVR,where we would see an increase current flow in one direction,and a decrease in current flow in the other direction.
The total power sent to the field winding in this experiment was 1 amp @ .3 volts (300mW). The current value was controlled by way of setting my power supply's current limit to 1 amp
The first scope shot shows the values without any current flowing through the field winding.
The second scope shot show the values with current now flowing through the field winding.
So,without current flowing through the field winding,we have a peak forward current value of 2.217 amps,and a peak reverse value of 2.16 amps--not sure why it has this offset,but it is only small.
With current flowing through our field winding,we have a peak forward current of 2.3 amps,and a peak reverse value of 1.81 amps.
So we see a difference of near half an amp in current flow in our soft iron loop.
This tells me that the magnetic field produced in the soft iron wire by the field winding,increases the speed of the electrons flow in one direction,and impedes the electrons flow speed in the other direction.
This also must mean that if the field winding was driven with an AC current (phase correct),we would see an increase in current flow in both directions through our soft iron wire loop--along with a decrease in power consumption from our toroid transformer.
Hope im on the right track here ION.
Brad
P.S--My scope is being powered from my inverter,so as to eliminate any ground loops.
My DC power supply also has an isolation transformer,so no ground loops there either.
So all three pieces of equipment(the variac,scope and DC power supply) are all isolated from one another.
We are also only running at 50Hz,so a very low frequency.
Brad, you said;
QuoteIt would seem to me, after reading what you have posted, that we agree on this-->are we on the same page?
Yes, it would seem we are.
QuoteI also agree that the earths magnetic field plays a very small roll,in fact,i do not even think it is worth worrying about once we exceed 10mA of current flow through a conductor/conducting wire,as the magnetic field produced around the wire would cancel out any influence by the earths magnetic field.
Yes, I agree this is true for a normal single current flow in a wire, however when the flux is nulled out by an equal but opposite current flow the only force left is the earth flux field which will influence the tiny dipole electrons. Then we must consider either nulling the earth field or providing an overwhelming flux that creates a head to toe alignment of the dipoles inside the conductor as opposed to a circular. ordering as with normal current flow and resultant flux.
e.g. this could be done with a solenoid type overwinding around our nulled conductors and a weak DC current, just enough to overcome the earth field.
If no overwinding is supplied, pre-aligned iron wire would suffice.
Regards
Brad
Just saw your very interesting wire experiment as I was busy with the prior post.
(Disclaimer of the following as I may have it wrong, please correct as needed)
If as conventional physics teaches that the movement of electrons in a conductor is very slow (drift velocity, um/sec), then our model must account for something moving much faster. Conventional physics then goes on to teach the billiard ball model, i.e. one electron at one end of the wire smacking into a long string of electrons and one being ejected. Other hypotheses (Ivor Catt etc) teach displacement current outside the wire as the fast purveyor, with the slow drift electrons tagging along at a much slower rate inside the wire because of collisions inside the wire (mean free path problem).
If we must regard drift velocity as true as it has somehow been measured then it might be reasonable to consider that charge itself is the fast purveyor, thus I preferred the model that fast moving charge must arrange the electrons in a preferred ordering. Looking at the end of the wire can we assume that the ordering is in concentric circles, after all, the field outside the wire seems to take this ordering.
While this model may be wrong, it is a model that makes it easier for me to visualize moving charge as the mechanism of inductance as it adds spin to the (nearly) stationary electrons over time, which continues the flow of charge for some time when the applied current ceases, as the electrons have been spun up and must continue to pump charge until the spin energy is depleted back down to normal spin velocity.
It would seem that drift velocity alone is way too slow to account for the arcing of a current carrying circuit when the circuit is opened.
A good model should make it easy to visualize the mechanism of inductance, BEMF, skin effect etc.
So Brad you said:
QuoteThis tells me that the magnetic field produced in the soft iron wire by the field winding,increases the speed of the electrons flow in one direction,and impedes the electrons flow speed in the other direction.
This also must mean that if the field winding was driven with an AC current (phase correct),we would see an increase in current flow in both directions through our soft iron wire loop--along with a decrease in power consumption from our toroid transformer.
I would agree, but would replace electron flow with charge flow.
Very nice experiment, something to be looked into more deeply. What happens if you use copper or aluminum wire in place of the soft iron wire?
Regards
http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/cda/16plus/copelech2pg3.html
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.03.20, 13:06:37
First up,is it true to say that the higher the value of current flow,the faster the electrons are moving through the wire,when that wire remains the same size(same wire)?,as it is the moving electrons that create current flow-right?
or more electrons flowing rather than flowing faster
That is an interesting question. I think it has always been taught that more current was a result of more electrons flowing. But is that correct? If a higher voltage equals a higher current flow as we all know it does, could that mean the electrons are just moving faster? In other words does this situation equate to fluid flow where more pressure from the pump moves the fluid faster which means more fluid flows in the same amount of time. Hmmm? What kind of test could we come up with to try and prove which is correct? Something to think about. Is it even possible to prove one way or the other?
Current is not the flow of electrons, although a flow of electrons does produce a current. Current is the flow of _charge_. Think of the Newton's Cradle toy. The middle balls barely move at all, but the momentum flows through them so that the "output" ball jumps out just as far as the "input" ball swings in. (minus losses of course.)
(https://i.imgur.com/kD3DAwn.gif)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.03.20, 16:30:22
Current is not the flow of electrons, although a flow of electrons does produce a current. Current is the flow of _charge_. Think of the Newton's Cradle toy. The middle balls barely move at all, but the momentum flows through them so that the "output" ball jumps out just as far as the "input" ball swings in. (minus losses of course.)
Agreed and yes, the billiard ball hypothesis was mentioned in my reply #32. Note that you can replace the inside row of balls with a thick solid steel rod that has very little horizontal compliance and the effect will be the same for the outer two balls.
I view what is happening inside the wire as a more dynamic model that includes an accumulation of charge flow inertia due to revving up of electron spin via the flow of charge past electrons that are predominately fixed by magnetic current flux and can otherwise only enjoy a small creepage effect (drift velocity). This may be wrong but it helps me to visualize such things as inductance which is otherwise explained by "fields". Something like moving quickly past a huge array of Tibetan prayer wheels. This is just my personal visualization tool and not necessarily correct.
Is "charge" independent of "electrons"?
(We are taught that electrons are negatively charged.)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2018.03.20, 19:15:13
Is "charge" independent of "electrons"?
(We are taught that electrons are negatively charged.)
That was/is my understanding as well Grumpy.
The electron is the charge carrier,so in order for the charge to be moving quicker,the carrier(the electron) must be moving quicker.
It's much like-if the wheels on a vehicle are rotating faster,then the vehicle is moving faster.
If we look at my test setup,we can see that it is the electric field produced by the toroid transformer that induces current flow in the single turn soft iron wire loop.
This electric field would only have to pass through one small portion of that single turn secondary loop in order to produce a set value of current flow. IOW,i believe that we could shield half of that single turn loop from the electric field,by having that single turn loop pass through a thick steel pipe,and the current flow through that loop would remain at the same value--maybe i will try this as well.
I see the electrons within a conductor being linked like a train,where only one small portion of that train is the engine that provides the motion.
Brad
In your experiment, I thought that the magnetic field of the transformer with DC applied either aided or hindered the flow of current in the single loop with AC applied.
Is this assessment incorrect?
One may argue that the field in the transformer is affected by the AC applied to the single loop and therefore a transformer-like induction effect is induced in the single coil even though the transformer has only DC applied.
Have you tried a bar magnet in place of the transformer?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2018.03.20, 23:43:17
In your experiment, I thought that the magnetic field of the transformer with DC applied either aided or hindered the flow of current in the single loop with AC applied.
Is this assessment incorrect?
One may argue that the field in the transformer is affected by the AC applied to the single loop and therefore a transformer-like induction effect is induced in the single coil even though the transformer has only DC applied.
Have you tried a bar magnet in place of the transformer?
Ok,you have lost me here Grumpy
The toroid transformer is supplied with an AC,and the field winding around the single turn secondary is supplied with a DC from my power supply.
The single turn secondary is induced via the alternating electric field from the toroid transformer,and the field winding around the single turn secondary is powered by my DC power supply.
QuoteHave you tried a bar magnet in place of the transformer?
I do not know what you mean here?
Brad
Light travels at 0.984 ft/nanosecond, so we often round this to
c = 1 ft/ns.
Easy.
I understand this is how fast a signal travels in a cable; the speed is NOT infinite.
When using the fluid analogy in this context it will be helpful to define whether the system is compressible, in-compressible, or a mixture of the two which I define as semi-elastic.
A hydraulic system is virtually in-compressible (like Newtons cradle), although it should be noted that some compression is possible at high enough pressures but the property of elastic return is not necessarily present.
In the case that compressible pneumatic systems are relevant and can undergo explosive decompression which manifests as an acceleration where the body (the gas volume itself) expands to cover a larger area at a lower average density into a lower pressure medium. (Same mass spread over a larger area).
Semi-elastic is a mixture of the two and manifests as a gas bubble within a liquid body and can be compressed until the gas body reaches its compression limit. In reality extremely large pressure would be needed at diminishing rates of return to continue the volume reduction.
You can eject water from a nozzle at higher speeds by turning the pump pressure up until a limit is reached at which point no further acceleration of the liquid stream occurs but the additional pressure from the pump is stored in the liquid and you see a static pressure increase in the "stationary" liquid waiting to be ejected.
Got to go to work now no more time to elaborate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.03.20, 16:30:22
Current is not the flow of electrons, although a flow of electrons does produce a current. Current is the flow of _charge_. Think of the Newton's Cradle toy. The middle balls barely move at all, but the momentum flows through them so that the "output" ball jumps out just as far as the "input" ball swings in. (minus losses of course.)
(https://i.imgur.com/kD3DAwn.gif)
Quote: Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field. There are two types of electric charges; positive and negative (commonly carried by protons and electrons respectively).
So i would have to disagree TK,as first there must be a flow of current in order for there to be the magnetic part of the electromagnetic field,and charge is carried by the electrons and protons.
In order for there to be a moving charge,there must be an electromagnetic field present in order to apply a force on that charge.
It is the electric field that induces an EMF across our secondary coil(referring to my posted experiment here),and when that path is close,and current starts to flow,only then do we get the magnetic part needed to make our electromagnetic field.
So how is !charge! already flowing,when the magnetic field only comes when current starts to flow?
What is flowing in an open coil when we measure an alternating voltage across it?
It is my belief that the electric field cuts the conductor and forces the electron to flow in one direction,and the protons in the other-so to speak.
It is also me belief that the magnetic field produced around the conductor due to current flow,is impeding this flow of electrons.
Hi ION, hi Brad,
I know your a radio Ham like me ION, and I'm sure you know about this (video link). I also know this is at HF 28Mhz but it also applies at lower frequencies and can be either sine or square wave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUYI81dkEMA
The out of phase of current and voltage (180º) can be used to advantage I am hoping by creating feedback into the transformer feed. I'm after the current not the voltage, I want to add a current source to an elevated voltage source.
So far with my tests, the feedback current has melted wires and blown FETS when 180º to the resonating capacitor, I think detuning, moving the feed/feedback around the loop to some other point in relation to the tuning capacitor.
As is quite obvious, I do not need to radiate, transmit, a signal, I want to keep everything within the magnetic loop and as so a zero radiation efficiency (not what a HAM needs, but in this case yes).
I am putting all this on my STEAP revisited thread, just thought I would post this here after reading Brads posts. I really think this is what SM was doing, using a magnetic vortex to create current to add to what is a voltage boost converter. 8) 8) and simple.
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.03.21, 01:20:50
Ok,you have lost me here Grumpy
The toroid transformer is supplied with an AC,and the field winding around the single turn secondary is supplied with a DC from my power supply.
The single turn secondary is induced via the alternating electric field from the toroid transformer,and the field winding around the single turn secondary is powered by my DC power supply.
I do not know what you mean here?
Brad
Never-mind, I had it totally wrong. I thought the transformer was supplied with DC and the single loop was just a single loop with AC applied. I didn't catch that the single loop had a wire wrapped around it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.03.20, 23:27:11
That was/is my understanding as well Grumpy.
The electron is the charge carrier,so in order for the charge to be moving quicker,the carrier(the electron) must be moving quicker.
It's much like-if the wheels on a vehicle are rotating faster,then the vehicle is moving faster.
If we look at my test setup,we can see that it is the electric field produced by the toroid transformer that induces current flow in the single turn soft iron wire loop.
This electric field would only have to pass through one small portion of that single turn secondary loop in order to produce a set value of current flow. IOW,i believe that we could shield half of that single turn loop from the electric field,by having that single turn loop pass through a thick steel pipe,and the current flow through that loop would remain at the same value--maybe i will try this as well.
I see the electrons within a conductor being linked like a train,where only one small portion of that train is the engine that provides the motion.
Brad
Based on your experiment and ION's first post in this topic, you may be able to drag electrons along the wire that has the DC winding around it by using a moving electric field.
This could be done mechanically by physically moving a charge coils or other object along a long conductor with a coil wrapped around it (like your single loop but much longer).
An alternative method would be to keep your single loop in a circle and sequentially apply HV to coils or other conductive members spaced around the circle.
I have already posted this on my STEAP revisited thread, but I also think it is apt here considering the title.
Regards
Mike 8)
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote from: ION on 2018.03.20, 14:09:53
Brad
Just saw your very interesting wire experiment as I was busy with the prior post.
(Disclaimer of the following as I may have it wrong, please correct as needed)
If as conventional physics teaches that the movement of electrons in a conductor is very slow (drift velocity, um/sec), then our model must account for something moving much faster. Conventional physics then goes on to teach the billiard ball model, i.e. one electron at one end of the wire smacking into a long string of electrons and one being ejected. Other hypotheses (Ivor Catt etc) teach displacement current outside the wire as the fast purveyor, with the slow drift electrons tagging along at a much slower rate inside the wire because of collisions inside the wire (mean free path problem).
If we must regard drift velocity as true as it has somehow been measured then it might be reasonable to consider that charge itself is the fast purveyor, thus I preferred the model that fast moving charge must arrange the electrons in a preferred ordering. Looking at the end of the wire can we assume that the ordering is in concentric circles, after all, the field outside the wire seems to take this ordering.
While this model may be wrong, it is a model that makes it easier for me to visualize moving charge as the mechanism of inductance as it adds spin to the (nearly) stationary electrons over time, which continues the flow of charge for some time when the applied current ceases, as the electrons have been spun up and must continue to pump charge until the spin energy is depleted back down to normal spin velocity.
It would seem that drift velocity alone is way too slow to account for the arcing of a current carrying circuit when the circuit is opened.
A good model should make it easy to visualize the mechanism of inductance, BEMF, skin effect etc.
So Brad you said:
I would agree, but would replace electron flow with charge flow.
Very nice experiment, something to be looked into more deeply. What happens if you use copper or aluminum wire in place of the soft iron wire?
Regards
http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/cda/16plus/copelech2pg3.html
Anymore thoughts on the subject of the thread ION?.
Anyway,some more tests i carried out with the single loop through the toroid transformer.
Here i have 58 odd % of the secondary loop shielded by a half loop of thick steel pipe,and see no reduction in output of the secondary loop.
I also see virtually no increase in the magnetic field,or any sign of the poynting vector playing a part in the induction of the secondary.
In the next video(will post when done in next reply),you will see i have shielded 78% of the secondary loop,and once again-no reduction seen in output by the secondary.
Seems to me that only 1 small part of the secondary loop has to be exposed to the electric field in order to gain maximum output from the secondary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n84bPUWLLLY
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.04.07, 04:39:24
Anymore thoughts on the subject of the thread ION?.
Anyway,some more tests i carried out with the single loop through the toroid transformer.
Here i have 58 odd % of the secondary loop shielded by a half loop of thick steel pipe,and see no reduction in output of the secondary loop.
I also see virtually no increase in the magnetic field,or any sign of the poynting vector playing a part in the induction of the secondary.
In the next video(will post when done in next reply),you will see i have shielded 78% of the secondary loop,and once again-no reduction seen in output by the secondary.
Seems to me that only 1 small part of the secondary loop has to be exposed to the electric field in order to gain maximum output from the secondary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n84bPUWLLLY
Brad
Here is the next video.
Here i have 78% of the secondary loop shielded from the electric field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqXC7Qjrh1Y
Brad
Brad,
If you put your scope probe across the ends of the steel pipe you will find the voltage induced there in just the same way that it gets induced across the one turn secondary. Thus the steel pipe does not screen that induction, just as you have demonstrated. This tells us that the induced electric field is not the same as the normal Coulomb electric field that you get around electric charge. It is different and can' t be screened in the normal way.
You do get something like screening if you connect the two end of the pipe together so that is appears as a shorted turn, and that's something you could easily do and put up a video. Again that is not quite the same as conventional electric screening since there is now some interaction with the magnetic field that is driving the induction. But you will see a reduction in the voltage across your CSR (and your input power will go up tremendously as the system drives into an almost short circuit load. If you can't work at that power level then reduce the variac voltage until you can drive that load, then compare your CSR voltage with that when you remove the short across to steel tube. )
As a matter of interest other people have tried to do what you show with the intention of using the steel pipe to shield the magnetic field coming from the load current, arguing that the primary will not now see the presence of the secondary because of that magnetic shielding effect. Unfortunately that doesn't work either because that magnetic shield adds inductance to the secondary and that affects the amount of current flowing in the secondary. A perfect magnetic shield still allows the voltage to be induced into the secondary, but now its inductance is infinite and no AC current can flow. This effect doesn't show up in your experiment because of your low frequency.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.04.07, 18:32:08
Brad,
If you put your scope probe across the ends of the steel pipe you will find the voltage induced there in just the same way that it gets induced across the one turn secondary. Thus the steel pipe does not screen that induction, just as you have demonstrated. This tells us that the induced electric field is not the same as the normal Coulomb electric field that you get around electric charge. It is different and can' t be screened in the normal way.
You do get something like screening if you connect the two end of the pipe together so that is appears as a shorted turn, and that's something you could easily do and put up a video. Again that is not quite the same as conventional electric screening since there is now some interaction with the magnetic field that is driving the induction. But you will see a reduction in the voltage across your CSR (and your input power will go up tremendously as the system drives into an almost short circuit load. If you can't work at that power level then reduce the variac voltage until you can drive that load, then compare your CSR voltage with that when you remove the short across to steel tube. )
As a matter of interest other people have tried to do what you show with the intention of using the steel pipe to shield the magnetic field coming from the load current, arguing that the primary will not now see the presence of the secondary because of that magnetic shielding effect. Unfortunately that doesn't work either because that magnetic shield adds inductance to the secondary and that affects the amount of current flowing in the secondary. A perfect magnetic shield still allows the voltage to be induced into the secondary, but now its inductance is infinite and no AC current can flow. This effect doesn't show up in your experiment because of your low frequency.
Smudge
Hi Smudge
What i was showing is that it is the electric field that induces the secondary-not the magnetic field.
The magnetic field is a bi-product of current flow,and not the inducer.
There is also the fact that the toroid dose a very good job at containing the magnetic field of the primary-as can be seen in my first video,where i have the sniffer coil around the steel pipe,and we see virtually no change in magnetic induced induction when the single loop secondary is loaded via the CVR.
Brad
To continue with the idea of the shorted steel pipe, here is an interesting variation with an non-shorted magnetic "turn".
We thread a C-I Laminated stack through the center of the driving toroid. Now we still have a path through the center that is nearly magnetically shorted, but electrically it is open due to the insulating varnish of the laminations.
Now all around the C-I stack we put say 10 turns of wire.
Electrically we have only a single turn of wire passing through the driving toroid (the ten turns are actually just a single turn passing through the center.)
All of the B field is inside the driving toroid so there should be no B field coupling to our laminated stack.
The output of our 10 turns should measure as just a single turn and there should be no transformer action.
The loading effect on the driving toroid should be the same as if just a single turn were passed through the center and it will not "see" the insulated laminated stack.
This would be the same as trying to link two toroidal inductors as "chain" links.
QuoteAnymore thoughts on the subject of the thread ION?.
To answer that Brad, I'm still pondering the idea of the thread, have not abandoned it, and will offer something when I have further thoughts worthy of posting.
Regards
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.04.08, 00:15:05
Hi Smudge
What i was showing is that it is the electric field that induces the secondary-not the magnetic field.
Yes I realise that, it is an electric field that drives the electrons in the secondary.
QuoteThe magnetic field is a bi-product of current flow,and not the inducer.
But it is the time-changing magnetic field in the toroidal core that
creates the electric field, and that comes about via the magnetic vector potential that exists outside the core. You can't claim the magnetic field as a by-product since it is an essential part of the electric field creation.
QuoteThere is also the fact that the toroid dose a very good job at containing the magnetic field of the primary
Indeed it does when the primary and secondary are wound on top of each other. Some people are mystified as to how you can get voltage induction into the secondary when it is not actually in contact with the magnetic field. The answer is that it
is in contact with the magnetic vector potential that forms closed loops around the core.
Smudge
I think it pertinent to ask the question, how does the presence of a time-changing magnetic field confined within a core create an electric field outside of the core? What exactly are the carriers that come out of the core? Indeed what are the carriers for any electric field? I think the clue might come from what is called "hidden momentum". There are a number of papers that explore the development of electromagnetic theory that define a form of momentum that is not the well-known mechanical mv, mass times velocity where the vector direction is determined by the velocity v. It is qA, charge times magnetic vector potential where the vector direction is determined by the magnetic vector potential A. Any matter particle that has both mass and charge will have a total momentum given by mv + qA. And since force is related to rate-of-change of momentum then two things can create a force, rate-of-change of v and/or rate-of-change of A. The first is of course the well-known mechanical inertia force and the second one science has chosen to name as an electric force. That qA momentum is termed "hidden" because it is not the recognized mechanical momentum.
If at first sight the presence of non-mechanical momentum seems strange, perhaps it becomes clearer if one delves further into the question posed above, what are the carriers for an electric field? If we consider those carriers to have momentum, then is it not possible that some form of momentum exchange between the matter particle and those carriers is really the cause of the electric force? Then the well-known electric force F = -q dA/dt does not come from rate-of-change hidden momentum, but does indeed come from rate-of-change of supplied momentum. The momentum is supplied from impact by (or rather absorption and emission of) some form of space quanta or virtual particle that carries momentum, but also carries information on how the matter particle will react to that. Of course we must have an enormous quantity of space particles that would otherwise play a game of ping-pong with the matter particle causing Heisenberg uncertainty or jitter but no average force. However this averaging to zero could be changed by space particles emitted from something nearby (like the magnetic dipoles within the core) to create an observable force.
It seems likely that the two forms or electric field, the Coulomb field E = -grad f and the induction field E = -dA/dt could both be explained by space quanta emanating from nearby charges, and the forces they create are genuinely produced by momentum exchange. For this to happen the space particles must travel at light velocity and must carry momentum. They must also have some vector quantity like spin that carries information about the distant charge from which they were emitted. Something like positive charges emit space particles with their spin pointing forwards (along their velocity) and negative charges emit space particles with their spin pointing backwards. That defines the Coulomb field. If the emitting charge is moving the spin direction as "seen" by a distant matter particle will not be aligned with its velocity and that misalignment could account for magnetic effects. Just some food for thought.
Smudge
Smudge
I agree with your theory, in fact I have thought about something similar already in the past. To complete theory you must however describe how the electric field create magnetic field.
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.04.09, 15:21:49
I think it pertinent to ask the question, how does the presence of a time-changing magnetic field confined within a core create an electric field outside of the core? What exactly are the carriers that come out of the core? Indeed what are the carriers for any electric field? I think the clue might come from what is called "hidden momentum". There are a number of papers that explore the development of electromagnetic theory that define a form of momentum that is not the well-known mechanical mv, mass times velocity where the vector direction is determined by the velocity v. It is qA, charge times magnetic vector potential where the vector direction is determined by the magnetic vector potential A. Any matter particle that has both mass and charge will have a total momentum given by mv + qA. And since force is related to rate-of-change of momentum then two things can create a force, rate-of-change of v and/or rate-of-change of A. The first is of course the well-known mechanical inertia force and the second one science has chosen to name as an electric force. That qA momentum is termed "hidden" because it is not the recognized mechanical momentum.
If at first sight the presence of non-mechanical momentum seems strange, perhaps it becomes clearer if one delves further into the question posed above, what are the carriers for an electric field? If we consider those carriers to have momentum, then is it not possible that some form of momentum exchange between the matter particle and those carriers is really the cause of the electric force? Then the well-known electric force F = -q dA/dt does not come from rate-of-change hidden momentum, but does indeed come from rate-of-change of supplied momentum. The momentum is supplied from impact by (or rather absorption and emission of) some form of space quanta or virtual particle that carries momentum, but also carries information on how the matter particle will react to that. Of course we must have an enormous quantity of space particles that would otherwise play a game of ping-pong with the matter particle causing Heisenberg uncertainty or jitter but no average force. However this averaging to zero could be changed by space particles emitted from something nearby (like the magnetic dipoles within the core) to create an observable force.
It seems likely that the two forms or electric field, the Coulomb field E = -grad f and the induction field E = -dA/dt could both be explained by space quanta emanating from nearby charges, and the forces they create are genuinely produced by momentum exchange. For this to happen the space particles must travel at light velocity and must carry momentum. They must also have some vector quantity like spin that carries information about the distant charge from which they were emitted. Something like positive charges emit space particles with their spin pointing forwards (along their velocity) and negative charges emit space particles with their spin pointing backwards. That defines the Coulomb field. If the emitting charge is moving the spin direction as "seen" by a distant matter particle will not be aligned with its velocity and that misalignment could account for magnetic effects. Just some food for thought.
Smudge
So,if i can show you an EMF being produced across a coil,where there is no magnetic field present,would you rethink your belief about a changing magnetic field being the producer of the electric field?
The electric field exist around a coil before current flows through it,and the magnetic field onlly exist once current starts to flow.
Will an EMF on my secondary (in my DUT) be in phase with the voltage across my primary,or will it be in phase with the current flowing through my primary?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.04.10, 05:16:28
So,if i can show you an EMF being produced across a coil,where there is no magnetic field present,would you rethink your belief about a changing magnetic field being the producer of the electric field?
Depends on the exhibition. If you just show the transient situation where the magnetic field is zero (but actually passing through zero) while the coil produces a voltage I would not be impressed. If you can show emf being produced over a period of time while there is zero magnetic field over that period of time then I would be prepared to rethink things.
QuoteThe electric field exist around a coil before current flows through it,and the magnetic field onlly exist once current starts to flow.
Would you like to expand on that statement as it doesn't make sense to me? What have you observed to lead you to that belief?
QuoteWill an EMF on my secondary (in my DUT) be in phase with the voltage across my primary,or will it be in phase with the current flowing through my primary?.
The answer depends on the conditions. Firstly I assume that you have a low impedance voltage source driving the transformer (for current driven transformers the answers would be different). Secondly I assume that you have a good transformer with tight coupling between primary and secondary so that leakage flux is negligible.
(a). If the secondary is open circuit the only current flowing is the primary magnetizing current that is 90 degree phase shifted from the primary voltage. The secondary voltage is in-phase with the primary voltage, so it is 90 degree shifted from the primary current. The magnetic flux is of course related to that magnetizing current.
(b). Now apply a light load and we get secondary current, we also get primary
load-current that is in phase with its voltage. Primary
magnetizing-current remains 90 degree shifted from its voltage, so the two quadrature components of current (
magnetizing plus
load) form a vector that is less than 90 degree shifted from voltage. Magnetizing-current and its consequent magnetic flux remain at their previous values. Secondary voltage remains in phase with primary voltage, but is now at less than 90 degrees shifted from primary current.
(c). Moving to a heavy load that draws primary load-current much greater than magnetizing-current we end up with primary current almost in phase with primary voltage. The secondary voltage is still in phase with primary voltage but now also almost in phase with primary current. The (now relatively small) magnetizing-current and its consequent magnetic flux remain at their previous values.
(d). If you take this further to a very heavy load that is almost a short circuit you get to a situation where the system is unable so sustain the same value of flux, currents are so high that primary and secondary resistance cause voltage drops that affect what you are measuring so I can't give a definitive answer.
What some people find hard to believe is that the high values of primary and secondary load currents that are in-phase with the voltages do not themselves produce any magnetic flux. (They do in a poor transformer where they drive leakage flux). The two load currents flow in opposite directions around the core and have a cancelling effect. That begs the question, if the secondary current does not produce any magnetic field how does the primary know that the secondary is there? The answer is that the secondary produces a mmf (ampere-turns) and the transformer has the ability to always match up the primary load-current mmf to that value. It acts something like a balanced bridge in that respect.
Smudge
From smudge:
Quote(d). If you take this further to a very heavy load that is almost a short circuit you get to a situation where the system is unable so sustain the same value of flux, currents are so high that primary and secondary resistance cause voltage drops that affect what you are measuring so I can't give a definitive answer.
You can go one step further, where identical primary and secondary are driven from the same source but out of phase. I believe this is the "worst case scenario" SM teaches, which if there is no core and no magnetizing current to consider, it results in nearly complete flux cancellation, depending of course on how skillfully our air core transformer is constructed to eliminate leakage flux.
In this case can anyone guess where the input power can go, assuming low loss in the resistance of the wire and unique construction of the coils?
In the ideal world of simulations, and zero ohmic losses, no power is absorbed by our ideal transformer. Of course, a shorted secondary would produce the same results in a Spice sim, as it is similar in principle to driving the secondary out of phase.
In the real world, and with purposeful elastic construction, large vibratory repulsive forces would occur between the windings. This is not available to transformers in typical Spice simulations but may be available in other magnetic sim programs e.g. for motor design.
It leads to some interesting musings and possibilities.
Regards
Quote from: ION on 2018.04.10, 13:31:13
From smudge:
You can go one step further, where identical primary and secondary are driven from the same source but out of phase. I believe this is the "worst case scenario" SM teaches, which if there is no core and no magnetizing current to consider, it results in nearly complete flux cancellation, depending of course on how skillfully our air core transformer is constructed to eliminate leakage flux.
In this case can anyone guess where the input power can go, assuming low loss in the resistance of the wire and unique construction of the coils?
Well it goes into the internal resistance of your voltage generator since that is effectively seeing a short circuit. There is no power transfer into your transformer so the input power there is zero.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.04.10, 14:57:30
Well it goes into the internal resistance of your voltage generator since that is effectively seeing a short circuit. There is no power transfer into your transformer so the input power there is zero.
Smudge
That is the correct answer if the windings cannot physically move. If they can physically move they will push apart on each half wave, and if the medium they are embedded in has resistive rather than perfect elastic properties, the medium will get hot as the coils perform work on it. If the medium has perfect elasticity, it will absorb the mechanical energy and release it 90 degrees later......if I am visualizing all this correctly.
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.04.09, 15:21:49
I think it pertinent to ask the question, how does the presence of a time-changing magnetic field confined within a core create an electric field outside of the core? What exactly are the carriers that come out of the core? Indeed what are the carriers for any electric field?
According to D.B. Larson, the motion of magnetic flux is a 2D motion, that cancels part of the 3D motion, that constitutes any gravitating body (matter), and the remaining 1D motion is the electric force. 3D - 2D = 1D.