OverUnity Research

Hi All

A few years ago, while visiting the park of the castle of Le Clos Lucé, France, where Leonardo da Vinci, invited by King Francis I in 1516, finished the last 4 years of his life, I had discovered the model of an invention (see photo) that is not Leonardo's but that he had taken from Archimedes, and which is Archimedes' screw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_screw).

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ri9MKgrqkNk/VXP6LI-kDZI/AAAAAAAAi4A/Lc4h7ZK3iTk/s640/P1020633.JPG)

By turning, with a crank, a tube wound helically along an inclined cylinder whose end is immersed in water, the water can be easily raised.

I wonder how to adapt the idea to the electromagnetic domain. This would make it possible to obtain a direct current from a rotating movement, thus from an alternating current, or a constant field from a variable field.
The idea does not seem to have been studied. The closest I have found is this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6741000), but it is a motor and I'm interested in solid state.

I started testing with a ferrite rod along which four copper strips were plated (see attached file). Associated two by two, they form cross capacitors. By powering them with two generators out of phase by 90°, we obtain a rotating electric field, and I hoped that the rotating polarization current in the ferrite, which is a very good dielectric, would create a detectable magnetic field with a compass (the coil we see in the picture was only there to detect a variable field).
My first attempts were negative, I don't know if it's a question of bad principle or of too weak effect.

Any explanation or other ideas?

Maybe this is the opposite of the Archimedes Screw:

I have always been interested in the inertial effect of electrons as demonstrated by Stewart-Tolman experiments in the early 1900's. They spun up a large coil then abruptly stopped it producing a voltage difference at the ends of the wires.

In a web search look for accurate descriptions of the original experiments.

I had just finished repairing one of those hose roll up contraptions used for garden hoses. When I went to test it I noticed a large reaction force in the coil of hose to the flow of water,  when the water was turned on or off abruptly. I'm sure there is some small steady state effect from the flow of water also.

I wondered if a coil would experience the same effect if it were pulsed, but never conceived of a proper experiment worthy of testing as it gets complicated because of reflections or BEMF. Maybe a coiled up transmission line would work as the pulse could be absorbed at one end without reflection.

Regards

Quote from: ion on 2019.01.10, 12:32:26
...
I wondered if a coil would experience the same effect if it were pulsed, but never conceived of a proper experiment worthy of testing as it gets complicated because of reflections or BEMF. Maybe a coiled up transmission line would work as the pulse could be absorbed at one end without reflection.
...

The inertial effect of electrons needs very high speed/acceleration and big charges. I fear that their drift velocity in a conductor (<< 1mm/s) is not sufficient to give a significant effect under a current. But when they are accelerated in a CRT, their mass must be taken into account.

My idea was not to use a mechanical method like in the Archimedes screw, but to find the equivalence of mechanical force and angular velocity in the field of electrical/magnetic forces and spin to simulate the screw method.
However, the idea of using electrons inertia joins another idea that I have of using currents in dielectrics rather than in conductors. In a dielectric, under a field, electronic clouds can shift very quickly around atomic nuclei (even if they are captive), thus having very high accelerations and perhaps inertial effects.

In dielectrics, we only have alternating current, so that inertial effects cancel each other out on average. But we have the Lorentz's force. If charges are accelerated back and forth in a dielectric by an electric field, and at the same time subjected to a transverse magnetic field of same frequency and phase, then the force F=q.VxB will always be of same direction because V (related to the current I) and B, change direction at the same time. We should have a directional force while using alternating fields.
I have already tried experimentally but without success, I don't know why.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.10, 13:57:54


In dielectrics, we only have alternating current, so that inertial effects cancel each other out on average. But we have the Lorentz's force. If charges are accelerated back and forth in a dielectric by an electric field, and at the same time subjected to a transverse magnetic field of same frequency and phase, then the force F=q.VxB will always be of same direction because V (related to the current I) and B, change direction at the same time. We should have a directional force while using alternating fields.
I have already tried experimentally but without success, I don't know why.

Sounds much like the magnetohydrodynamic drive/pump,which can also use AC as you have explained above.
If it works with water,i dont see why it will not work with electrons.

An interesting project  O0


Brad

Maybe the Thoneman patent is of interest here, see
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3418.msg59845#msg59845 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3418.msg59845#msg59845)
and the following messages.  In my opinion a negative surface charge (excess electrons) can allow a surface current to flow at much greater drift velocity than the usual volume current, and that could be put to useful effect.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.01.10, 16:13:10
Maybe the Thoneman patent is of interest here, see
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3418.msg59845#msg59845 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3418.msg59845#msg59845)
and the following messages.  In my opinion a negative surface charge (excess electrons) can allow a surface current to flow at much greater drift velocity than the usual volume current, and that could be put to useful effect.
Smudge

Strange, I remember contributing to that thread but it now says it is off limits to me.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.10, 14:46:21
Sounds much like the magnetohydrodynamic drive/pump,which can also use AC as you have explained above.
If it works with water,i dont see why it will not work with electrons.

An interesting project  O0

Brad

I forgot the MHD. I agree, it's really the same principle. I would just like the system to be solid state. In MHD, forces act on the charges of a conductive fluid to provide relative motion.
I'm looking for a way so that the forces on the charges provide a current. We are in 3D: an electric field along X to move electrons back and forth in a current I along X, a transverse magnetic field B along Y, synchronous with I, and which deflects electrons perpendicularly, i. e. along Z, always in the same direction. Therefore, we should detect a current along Z, a kind of full wave rectified current. Even if we don't have the DC component, we should see this double frequency signal. But I never could detect it. Something must be missing or wrong.

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.01.10, 16:13:10
... In my opinion a negative surface charge (excess electrons) can allow a surface current to flow at much greater drift velocity than the usual volume current, and that could be put to useful effect.
Smudge

You mean a conductive surface and electrons subjected to an electrical force? Or to a mechanical force? I asked myself the same question.
In the case of electrical force, for example, by commuting a voltage through successive electrodes over a copper strip to create a moving field, since there is no specialization of electrons, I tend to think that excess electrons play the same role as free electrons.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.10, 16:49:47
You mean a conductive surface and electrons subjected to an electrical force? Or to a mechanical force? I asked myself the same question.
In the case of electrical force, for example, by commuting a voltage through successive electrodes over a copper strip to create a moving field, since there is no specialization of electrons, I tend to think that excess electrons play the same role as free electrons.

Yes I mean a conductive surface that is one electrode of a capacitor charged to a high DC voltage.  If that is a linear conductor that passes through a ring core it can receive an electrical force that will create greater electron bunching one side of the core and less the other side over a half cycle.  A succession of ring cores driven with 90 degree phase shift between successive cores will do the linear-motor thing and pump electron bunches along at a speed determined by the input frequency.  I think that will work somewhat like a peristaltic pump.
Smudge

Quote from: ion on 2019.01.10, 16:27:12
Strange, I remember contributing to that thread but it now says it is off limits to me.

Well it let me in earlier today while I reminded myself but now it is off limits.  Strange indeed!!

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.01.10, 20:11:08
Well it let me in earlier today while I reminded myself but now it is off limits.  Strange indeed!!

I  pm'ed Peter, he replied that the particular post may have been deleted. Nevertheless I found a way back into the Thoneman work with a search.

During that time in 2017, I was focused on the Thoneman replication with partzman, Itsu and others, so I did not give but a quick read to a paper and some software posted by Vasik referencing the work of Michael (aka Mimo?).

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.msg61310#msg61310

I again downloaded the paper and gave it a better read. Some of you may find his hypothesis interesting, and his work with the fields from split ring cores.

I still hold my original opinion that his build may have been overly complex for a proof of concept. Since the work ended abruptly with no testing we can not know if it has worth, however some of the concepts put forth are interesting. We share the opinion that phonons, magnetostriction and supersonic (ultrasonic) acoustic waves may participate.

If you have the time, give it a read, there are some jewels to be found.

Regards

P.S I will bump the thread with Vasiks paper regarding the work of "Mimo" as some of the points in the paper deserve a closer look.

I am looking to perform an experiment similar to the MHD, but where instead of obtaining a relative movement due to the forces on the charges, we obtain a current.

See experiment diagram in the attached file.

Along a ferrite cylinder are plated 4 copper strips constituting, two by two, two crossed capacitors (of about 22pF). The ferrite plays the role of dielectric.

The FG powers a coil around the ferrite with a current I, creating a magnetic field B.
This generator is also connected to 2 opposite plates (in dark blue on the diagram), creating an electric field E through a diameter of the ferrite, thus creating a polarization current.

Since the polarization current and magnetic field are transverse, the Lorentz force F=q.VxB should apply to the dielectric charges, and creates a polarization current perpendicular to E and B, therefore directed along the axis of the second capacitor (in light blue).

E and B being synchronous, they change sign at the same time, so the force F is always in the same direction (MHD principle). I expected to detect at the terminals of the second capacitor a kind of double alternating rectified voltage, therefore a signal at twice the frequency.

But nothing. Even with a filter at  twice the frequency to remove pollution from the fundamental frequency, nothing is detected. What did I miss?

I see what you are attempting but can't yet think of an improvement to the test.

Maybe Smudge could help out here.

Regards

Second setup with a ferrite toroid.
The inner and outer walls of a ferrite cylinder are copper plated and form a capacitor that produces an electric field across the thickness of the torus.
Coil 1 (see attached file) produces a magnetic field in phase with the electric field, directed in circle inside the ferrite.
The Lorentz force must therefore be exerted vertically on the electrons in the ferrite, always in the same direction because E and B are synchronous, they change sign at the same time.
The vertical movement of electrons means that the ferrite can be seen as a section of a large conductor in which a current flows, inducing an FEM that should be detectable by coil 2.

Again, negative result. There is certainly an impediment in principle, but I don't see where.

Update : the second setup can't work because the B field produced by Lorentz force on dielectric charges is around the ferrite cylinder. Attached file modified.

I found a scientific paper (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00793175) that gives a little more credit to my idea (see attached extract). However, I still do not see why I cannot experimentally highlight the current or voltage transverse at I and B in a dielectric where I and B are synchronous, as a consequence of the Lorentz force F=i.l.B (F=vxB).

The force F is proportional to the product I x B. Since I and B are sinusoidal, this gives us F of sin² type. Therefore, in addition to the DC component, a signal at twice the frequency must appear, as from a full-wave rectifier.
Yesterday's experiments with a selective receiver tuned at twice the I and B frequency showed no significant signals. I still don't see why.

----------------------------
Update:
I understood one minute after I posted the paper above, and thanks to this paper.
The Lorentz force acts in the dielectric on both positive and negative charges. We know that the electronic clouds of atoms will move in one direction much more than the positive nuclei in the other. However, the current of both types of charges is of same amplitude and in opposite directions! So, if we do have a net force on the charges of both types, therefore a mechanical effect like in MHD, on the other hand we cannot highlight an electrical effect because the charges of both sign have opposite effects.

By charging the dielectric with static charges beforehand, would it be possible to create an electrical imbalance that the Lorentz force could translate into electrical effects, not sure but I'm thinking about it.

see the TPU and AVEC

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.12, 10:45:06

The Lorentz force acts in the dielectric on both positive and negative charges. We know that the electronic clouds of atoms will move in one direction much more than the positive nuclei in the other. However, the current of both types of charges is of same amplitude and in opposite directions!

No, the velocities or movements are in opposite directions, but the currents are in the same direction.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.01.23, 16:12:15

QuoteThe Lorentz force acts in the dielectric on both positive and negative charges. We know that the electronic clouds of atoms will move in one direction much more than the positive nuclei in the other. However, the current of both types of charges is of same amplitude and in opposite directions!

No, the velocities or movements are in opposite directions, but the currents are in the same direction.
Smudge

No, the currents I'm talking about are in opposite directions. Remember that we are talking about charges under the Lorentz force F=q.VxB, this current I2 is transverse to the current I1 of charges at speed V due to the electric field E (B and V are perpendicular).

• Under the same electric field E, charges of different sign go in opposite direction, their speed vector have opposite sign and also their charge sign, thus their current I1 is of same sign.


• As they share the same B field which is synchronous with E and transverse, and the Lorentz force depends on the charge sign and on the speed vector, opposite charges going in opposite direction are submitted to a force of same direction (that's the MHD principle).
  


• The charges going in the same direction under the Lorentz force (transverse to I1 and to B) and being of opposite sign, their currents are opposite, so I2=0.

This is why I would like to create an imbalance of charges of both sign in a dielectric to avoid the cancellation of  the transverse current I2.

(This may be the cause of the non-linearities I observe with conductive ferrites, the magnetic field being the one created by I1: the charges would be deflected by their own magnetic field as for the skin effect, but the effect would be much greater in conductive ferrites because of their permeability and permittivity much higher than in metals. It's to dig deeper).

Maybe this thread is not clear on the purpose, not even to me at the begining. I'll try to clarify simply, now that I have a lead for the archimedes' screw.

We know that the Lorentz force F=q.VxB is transverse to the speed of the charges, therefore to the current. This force is generally used as a mechanical force, for example in a motor, because the force on the charges in a current I1 is deflected perpendicularly but the charges cannot escape from the conductor wire. The force is therefore transferred to the crystal lattice of the conductor wire and becomes a mechanical force on the wire.

What if this force instead of being mechanical, could remain electric and create an I2 current transverse to the main current?

Since this current I2 would be proportional to both B and I1, that B and I1 can be alternating and in phase so that the product always remains of the same sign, including excess charges in dielectrics, then the force would also remain of the same direction and we would have a rectification. But unlike a diode, it would have no threshold effect! This means that even thermal noise could be rectified.
There are probably many other possibilities for using this "cross current", and I am not aware that this avenue would have been explored.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.23, 18:06:25
Maybe this thread is not clear on the purpose, not even to me at the begining. I'll try to clarify simply, now that I have a lead for the archimedes' screw.

We know that the Lorentz force F=q.VxB is transverse to the speed of the charges, therefore to the current. This force is generally used as a mechanical force, for example in a motor, because the force on the charges in a current I1 is deflected perpendicularly but the charges cannot escape from the conductor wire. The force is therefore transferred to the crystal lattice of the conductor wire and becomes a mechanical force on the wire.

What if this force instead of being mechanical, could remain electric and create an I2 current transverse to the main current?

Since this current I2 would be proportional to both B and I1, that B and I1 can be alternating and in phase so that the product always remains of the same sign, including excess charges in dielectrics, then the force would also remain of the same direction and we would have a rectification. But unlike a diode, it would have no threshold effect! This means that even thermal noise could be rectified.
There are probably many other possibilities for using this "cross current", and I am not aware that this avenue would have been explored.

I think you are on to something here. Please do not give up on this.

I  see that you also find interest in the writings of Bibhas De, as do I.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.23, 18:06:25

What if this force instead of being mechanical, could remain electric and create an I2 current transverse to the main current?

Do you mean induce a current into a wire in the center of a coil?

This is what occurred in the later TPU's, per Mr. Mark's own description.  How it occurred is a subject of mystery...

Quote from: ion on 2019.01.10, 12:32:26
Maybe this is the opposite of the Archimedes Screw:

I have always been interested in the inertial effect of electrons as demonstrated by Stewart-Tolman experiments in the early 1900's. They spun up a large coil then abruptly stopped it producing a voltage difference at the ends of the wires.

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/3372/

Regarding the paper by Bibhas De: I remember reading it many years ago, but nothing sunk in until I re-read it thanks to  F6FLT who posted an excerpt.

Here is one section (Equation 10 posted below) that is worthy of further thought, especially in reference to the TPU. The whole paper is a good read so I have attached it below.

Grumpy:
I am very interested in Stewart / Tolman experiments, and the inertial effects of electrons, especially how it might apply to the TPU.
I referenced their work in a paper called "Acoustic Resonator Hypothesis" back in 2007.
Accelerating electrons in a conductor by means of a current is fruitless as the current freezes the electrons, limiting them to normal drift velocity um/sec. SM gave us a few clues to overcoming this "mean free path" problem.

Another inertial effect, attributed to rotating magnets, is the Aspden Effect, discovered by Dr. Harold Aspden.

Coincidentally, both the Aspden Effect and the Stewart / Tolman effect show a greater effect depending on the rotational direction.   I have not compared them to see if the actual directions coincide between the two.

So, are these effects due to electrons in conductors or the "space" around the moving conductor being entrained?

Thank you for the R Bibhas paper, Ion. It's just in the subject.

When he writes: "all substances (conductors and dielectrics) experience the J x B force in a magnetic field", he reminds me of another closely related question that intrigued me and remained unanswered.

R Bibhas uses in its formulations currents, current density and he considers material dielectrics. We understand that the Lorentz force can be applied to the charges and therefore to the dielectric. In this context everything is clear.

The problem is that even vacuum can be used as a dielectric, and we can always talk about current and current density through vacuum. If we keep his equations, and wonder about the passage of a polarization current in vacuum, for example between the plates of a capacitor, then the J x B force should apply to the vacuum.

But the vacuum between plates, unlike a material dielectric, is not rigidly bound to the plates. Would the J x B force displace the vacuum (the pairs of virtual charges)? If so, this would challenge the conservation of momentum of the device, which has not been seen experimentally, and would also require two explanations, one for material dielectrics, the other for vacuum dielectric, which is not satisfactory.

However I think R Bibhas is right about the effect of Lorentz force on dielectric charges, but how can this view be reconciled with a vacuum dielectric?

I think it is interesting to note that the large Hendershot device uses custom made single layer cylindrical capacitors in close proximity to the specially wound coils as a necessary part of it's operation.

Logic seems to infer that if this dielectric / magnetic interaction were not somehow involved in the operation of the device, those custom capacitors could have been located elsewhere and substituted with a normal capacitor. (i.e. if only capacitance was required)

Also of note, the so called "basket weave coils" are of much tighter serpentine action than radio coils of basket weave construction of the early radio era where inter-winding capacitance was to be minimized. This (Hendershot method) produces a much longer path length for the wire and adds resistance, therefore lowering "Q" contrary to the normal radio requirement of a high "Q" coil. So what could be it's use?

Lack of success by replicators of the device may be partially attributed to the fact that none (that I know of) actually filled the small space between the coils and cylindrical caps with a mixture of paraffin and microphone carbon, as Hendershot did. Check images of replicators on the web compared to the original.

As usual, there are many fakirs out there with rigged demo's and selling plans that don't work.

Sorry if this observation seems to derail the thread, but I think it is related. We do have a thread for this device. Delete if necessary.

It's likely related, and you gave the key: "none (that I know of) actually filled the small space between the coils and cylindrical caps with a mixture of paraffin and microphone carbon, as Hendershot did". A conductive dust included in an insulator can give a good dielectric. I'll take a closer look at it.

I think the electric field and its perpendicular orientation to the magnetic field are more important than the dielectric. 

That said, I'd look at the TPU.

I've been hearing about the TPU for over 10 years, but I don't see anything coming. I see a lot of setups (underunity) but a lack of details about the underlying principle. I'm not getting into this without a guiding idea.

Nevertheless the "perpendicular orientation to the magnetic field" is ensured in my setup. When a current flows through the ferrite, it creates looped magnetic field lines around the electric field lines (around the current), so this B field is perpendicular to the current. Therefore, the charges in the current are subjected to their own magnetic field. This causes the skin effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect), see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect#/media/File:Skineffect_reason.svg). Since a ferrite has a high permeability and the current flows through it, the B field should be strong, and so must be the skin effect in ferrites, i.e a transverse current.

I am first interested in the elementary phenomena that an idea suggests, and if after experimental verification they prove to be effective, then we can start in more important things like TPU. Not before, that's my method.  :)

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.24, 18:33:05
I am first interested in the elementary phenomena that an idea suggests, and if after experimental verification they prove to be effective, then we can start in more important things like TPU. Not before, that's my method.  :)

The mechanism of operation that you can experimentally determine and then expand on, here it is:

Apply very short HV positive pulses to an air coil with many many windings.  Place a magnet near this coil and even though a negligible magnetic field is produced by the coil, the electric pulses will cause the magnet to move violently.  This is very similar to the bifilar speaker coil event that Steven Mark discovered that led to the TPU.   If your pulses are short enough, you will convince yourself that it is not a magnetic interaction.  Further experimentation will show that the magnetic field can become much stronger than what the magnet produces.  It's not DC in this test because it varies wildly.

The next step is to try to utilize the effect.

It's just a recipe with lots of artifact possibilities.
What is it to prove?
What is the underlying idea?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.25, 09:33:48
It's just a recipe with lots of artifact possibilities.
What is it to prove?
What is the underlying idea?

That a moving electric field, orthogonal to a static magnetic field induces a current.

Isn't that what you were looking for in the beginning of this discussion?

Note that this is absent from accepted, incomplete physics. It is defined and analyzed by Johnson's in his Gyroscopic Force Theory, but very few have even heard of it.

Of course everyone who tries the simple magnet experiment doesn't know why the magnet reacts so strongly.  It takes a lot more experimentation to determine this.  You could also repeat the bifilar voice coil (for a audio speaker) arrangement that Steven Mark claimed led to his TPU's, but you need the ns delay to get the pulse compression. 

Most never get past this discussion, because they don't think it will work, and dismiss the idea.

So as not to further disrupt this thread, may I recommend that we move further discussion of TPU effects and how they may have been created to this thread:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3584.0

Dear F6FLT, you may not have seen this thread as you were not a member when it was created, but it outlines one possible path (of a few) to  TPU investigations and why all results to date have ended in failure. If you have the time, please give it a look of at least the first page.

Regards

Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.01.25, 14:09:58
That a moving electric field, orthogonal to a static magnetic field induces a current.

Isn't that what you were looking for in the beginning of this discussion?

Not exactly. See "experiment 1" here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3690.0;attach=30404

An AC electric field E is producing a current I1 in a dielectric along the x-axis.
An AC B field perpendicular and synchronous with E is oriented along the y-axis.
I expect a current I2 along the Z axis due to the Lorentz force. This current being proportional to the product B.I1 must have a DC component as well as a strong signature by a signal at a frequency twice that of I1 and B (sin²).

But this can't work, because in a dielectric the Lorentz force acts on both positive and negative charges. Both kind of charge moves in the same direction, but as they have opposite sign, their current is canceled. We can see mechanical effects but not electrical effets.
Now the idea is to create an imbalance of charges to avoid the I2 cancelation. That's why I tested conductive ferrites.

Quote
Form a varying magnetic field in phase with a transverse and synchronous B field

Note that this is absent from accepted, incomplete physics. It is defined and analyzed by Johnson's in his Gyroscopic Force Theory, but very few have even heard of it.

Of course everyone who tries the simple magnet experiment doesn't know why the magnet reacts so strongly.  It takes a lot more experimentation to determine this.  You could also repeat the bifilar voice coil (for a audio speaker) arrangement that Steven Mark claimed led to his TPU's, but you need the ns delay to get the pulse compression. 

Most never get past this discussion, because they don't think it will work, and dismiss the idea.

It's surely interesting to test and probably I will if the TPU had just been presented. But he's over 10 years old! What more could I bring? After so many experimenters and activity around the TPU, no one has yet drawn any conclusions?

Quote from: ion on 2019.01.25, 16:24:44
So as not to further disrupt this thread, may I recommend that we move further discussion of TPU effects and how they may have been created to this thread:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3584.0

Dear F6FLT, you may not have seen this thread as you were not a member when it was created, but it outlines one possible path (of a few) to  TPU investigations and why all results to date have ended in failure. If you have the time, please give it a look of at least the first page.

Regards

Thanks for the link, Ion.
If all results to date have ended in failure, why believe that there is something that could work?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.25, 17:30:00
in a dielectric the Lorentz force acts on both positive and negative charges. Both kind of charge moves in the same direction

Hi F6FLT,

I have question, why you assume that charges move in dielectric ?
Isn't it dielectric because charges are fixed, so no current is possible.
Did I miss something ?

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.25, 17:52:39
Thanks for the link, Ion.
If all results to date have ended in failure, why believe that there is something that could work?

Dear F6FLT

You have a good point, however I personally believe that most folks have been traveling already well worn paths, hence they will not uncover new modes.

Bibhas De infers "The Foundation is the Frontier" and in the basement of the physics ediface are experiments that have been shrouded or otherwise covered over and ignored as they do not fit into the existing framework of the establishment.

This is not to say that the existing framework is wrong, as it has brought us many wonderful inventions, but it may be incomplete or have some interesting unexplored areas.

My long study (12 year) of the TPU of SM and it's history timelines etc. has compelled me with the desire to study the basic laws of electrodynamics and try to understand them more clearly.

The normal electrodynamic paths are well traveled and I seriously doubt they will reveal any violations of current laws of thermodynamics.
Most pulsing of coils etc seems to lead to null experiments, as most seem to treat the TPU as an exotic Faraday transformer. They will get nowhere IMHO.

A viable gain mechanism a priori must be the basis of a hypothesis.

When we have looked at nearly all the known means of induction and production of current flow in a conductor, we then need to back up and rethink.

If the TPU has done nothing more than that, it was worth the exercise, but I am a mere beginner, there are others on the forum far more advanced in understanding electrodynamics  than I.

Of all the FE devices, The TPU is still the main one that intrigues me especially because of it's history, how it came to be known, how it came to disappear, and precisely because of all the unsuccessful replications.

I can point to numerous supporting data why I believe it was real and only a very few reasons why I also believe in some instances it could be faked . So it keeps me exploring, and maybe while pondering these things I may accidentally hit on some method that may be helpful, perhaps even unrelated to the basic quest.

At age 73, I suppose one might say "there's no fool like an old fool".

Regards

P.S. Other devices of interest: Coler, Moray, Hendershot, Colman-Gillespie etc. and experiments in LENR, however I look with a jaundiced eye at 99.9% of the FE claims out there. It's the 0.1% that gain entry to my door.

Dear Ion,

I understand your point of view, rational and constructive, and I respect it. I think mine is close, the only difference being that I am a little more skeptical. In addition, I have the language barrier that slows me down in research: for example, I see that there are hundreds of articles and videos on the TPU (most of which I suppose are useless), but where Steven Mark's original work is located? I don't know, for me it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

So I became more selective: if after 5 years a thundering announcement has remained unsuccessful, without duplication, or if a discoverer only presents videos but no paper where he synthesizes his work, with reproducible experiment diagrams to support it, I drop it.

On my side, it was not the TPU but the Naudin's lifter that made me reconnect with the physics I had studied a little when I was a student. The lifter works, I built one, it's conventional but it works, so why shouldn't the MEG also on the Naudin site work? And so I took up physics again and reviewed electromagnetism, relativity, and QM (and understood the MEG absurdity and Bearden's "crackpotness").

Of the people you mentioned at the end, I only kept Coler. In fact, Von Unruh was probably the thinking head. I gave up for lack of information to reproduce the device and lack of ideas on its possible principle of operation, although I think that the observations attested by several were real and that the "Magnetstromapparat" did produce unexpected effects.

In nine years I'll join you in age. Uh, no, you'll be ahead again!
;)
François

F6FLT
You said:

QuoteI see that there are hundreds of articles and videos on the TPU (most of which I suppose are useless), but where Steven Mark's original work is located? I don't know, for me it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Yes, most of the stuff on youtube and the web has wandered far and gotten very lost from the original knowledge base. There are many "faked" videos on youtube by people seeking attention. One person in particular had a following and has charged admission to his private group, but the work was fruitless after many years.

We can help with that, should you get interested in it. This site has folks very knowledgeable and experienced in TPU research, and I believe the founders and some long time members of this site came out of that very search.  This is not to imply that we know the operating mechanism, but we may know where not to look.

If you have any specific questions, post them in the topic thread or pm me.

Regards.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.01.24, 21:40:18
The mechanism of operation that you can experimentally determine and then expand on, here it is:

Apply very short HV positive pulses to an air coil with many many windings.  Place a magnet near this coil and even though a negligible magnetic field is produced by the coil, the electric pulses will cause the magnet to move violently.  This is very similar to the bifilar speaker coil event that Steven Mark discovered that led to the TPU.   If your pulses are short enough, you will convince yourself that it is not a magnetic interaction.  Further experimentation will show that the magnetic field can become much stronger than what the magnet produces.  It's not DC in this test because it varies wildly.

The next step is to try to utilize the effect.

Excellent advice :)

Though I think the reason so many have trouble replicating effects is because high voltage and modern electronics generally do not play well together.

You either end up pushing the envelope of your FETs with 1000v nanosecond pulser circuits, or using 20kv+ power supplies to drive a deivce that has to be measured from well across the room.
It is hard to walk the HV--silicon tightrope.

F6FLT: the most interesting experiments I've made were from users recommnding simple tests like this.  I'd suggest starting there.
I spent 2 months on the bench just measuring coils made with different types of wire because GK suggested Iron was a better antenna than copper (it did not make sense, but he was 1000% right).

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.01.27, 13:59:00
...
I spent 2 months on the bench just measuring coils made with different types of wire because GK suggested Iron was a better antenna than copper (it did not make sense, but he was 1000% right).

at what frequencies would iron be better and what is the relationship between "coil" and "antenna"?

F6FLT

Going back to your first post,it would seem that the DUT i posted in the !new observations! thread perhaps belongs here.

To recap--
So the idea is to take a length of thick copper wire(in this case the core wire is 1mm),and wrap that length of wire with a smaller gauge wire(in this case .55mm)

As there is over 1000 turns to make,i decided to throw together a quick motor driven winder--first pic.
It has a motor at one end,and a bearing head at the other,which allows the core wire to rotate with the motor.

Last pic shows the winding in progress--it worked better than i had hoped  O0


Second pic-I then took this wrapped combination,and wrapped it around a toroid core.
The core is one i made myself using DEVCON liquid metal.

The .55mm wire(the wire wrapped around the 1mm core wire)has a 1 ohm CSR on the ground side(ch2 blue chanel). CH1 is across the CSR and .55mm coil.
The inner core wire has a 1 ohm CSR across it,and CH3 is showing the signal across the core winding.

I was not expecting anything to happen,but was surprised at the results.

1st scope shot shows all 3 traces,where the(what we will call)secondary (CH3) shows the RMS value across the 1 ohm load resistor,and the calculated P/in. The P/in value is on the high side,as the voltage trace (CH1) also includes the voltage across the 1 ohm CSR.

The second scope shot shows P/in when the 1 ohm load resistor is removed from the core winding.
Oddly enough,the P/in go's down very little when the load is removed.

Best results are had around 532KHz,which is what the scope shot tests are run at. But the effect starts as low as 50KHz.

Perhaps the poynting vector field plays a part in this?

This was just a quick throw together DUT.
As you can tell,the winding around the toroid is not very neat(it was getting close to 45*C in the work shop at the time),and the toroid core it self is of poor quality.
I also think a longer core wire with more turns of the smaller outer wire around it,and more turns of the combination wires around a good ferrite toroid would result in a far greater efficiency.

I believe this system could produce much better results if more time was taken with it.

I was looking for a way to accelerate the electrons,and this idea just popped up.
Probably not doing as intended,but i am surprised at how efficient the transfer of electrical energy is from primary to secondary in this winding configuration.

It may be of some use,it may not,but this is what i got from the quick build and test.

If we look at the geometry,it is the same as the mechanical Archimed's screw,but solid state in design.

Rather than have it wound around a toroid core,maybe we wind it around a long rod magnet ?
When a current is sent through the outer winding's,the inner wire (core wire) would be shielded from the PMs field. When the current is cut to the outer windings,the PMs field would induce a current through the core wire,as that core wire now forms a coil around the length of the rod PM.

Then there is also the inductive kickback from the outer spiral winding ?
ATM,i have no idea if there even would be any IKB from that winding,but will find out soon enough.

I am a firm believer that the PM holds the key to endless amounts of energy,but the trick is--how to gather that energy ? Perhaps this mix will yield the results we want.

If you do not think this idea belongs here,then feel free to say so,and i will move it to another thread.


Brad

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.28, 12:02:41
at what frequencies would iron be better and what is the relationship between "coil" and "antenna"?

In the far field, the highest amplification vs copper was below 50khz.  In the near field, it was better at any frequency.

After testing MANY types of wire, I concluded that the difference was due to diamagnetic vs. ferromagnetic properties of the metal.
The ferromagnetic properties of iron/nickel causes the magnetic component of the wave to be sucked into the wire, whereas a diamagnetic wire simply repels it.

The guru's here taught me the simplest experiments can often be the most mind-blowing ;)

I have been doing tests similar to Brad's with windings on top of copper or iron wire, but have not yet threaded it through a core, just using a magnetic probe. I believe partzman has already done a similar experiment with a core.

My intention is to see if it is possible to fold the normal "B" field that surrounds the wire back into the wire with the overwinding, by carefully apportioning the current through each such that a null on the outside of the wire can occur.

Problem is the overwinding also acts as a  turn when threaded through the core, so that alone should cause some  cancellation or addition around the host wire, depending on the phasing. These factors need to be carefully separated out.

My intent to cancel flux was based on SM's teaching.

Originally I was researching magnetostriction effects in iron wire using the attached diagram, which are quite pronounced at several frequencies. Further research in magnetostriction will be to drive the loop with two slightly different frequencies to see if the lower harmonic produces a low frequency vibration (as reported in the TPU) and other effects.

Quote from: ion on 2019.01.28, 16:45:51
I have been doing tests similar to Brad's with windings on top of copper or iron wire, but have not yet threaded it through a core, just using a magnetic probe. I believe partzman has already done a similar experiment with a core.

My intention is to see if it is possible to fold the normal "B" field that surrounds the wire back into the wire with the overwinding, by carefully apportioning the current through each such that a null on the outside of the wire can occur.

Problem is the overwinding also acts as a  turn when threaded through the core, so that alone should cause some  cancellation or addition around the host wire, depending on the phasing. These factors need to be carefully separated out.

My intent to cancel flux was based on SM's teaching.

Originally I was researching magnetostriction effects in iron wire using the attached diagram, which are quite pronounced at several frequencies. Further research in magnetostriction will be to drive the loop with two slightly different frequencies to see if the lower harmonic produces a low frequency vibration (as reported in the TPU) and other effects.

If i send a current through the core wire,i also can produce a voltage across the wrapped wire.

If the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the core wire forms a directional spiral loop,then is it possible that that magnetic field could be draging the electrons through the outer wound wire,much like rotating the center shaft of the Achameds screw pump can create a flow of water through the outer spiral pipe ?.


Brad

 @TinMan

The magnetic field is concentric with the central wire, the field lines are in circles around, not spiraling, it cannot induce current in the outer wound wire except if we consider the central wire as a large loop circuit and the outer wound wire as a single large loop like the first one, magnetically coupled to the other, which is a conventional effect with a transformer ratio = 1 (provided there is no resonance).
It is also to be noticed that the central wire is capacitively coupled to the other. Since there is a potential difference between each end of the central wire, it is not surprising to also find a voltage across the outer wound wire.
I don't see possibilities for exotic effects from this two common effects.

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.01.28, 14:59:10
In the far field, the highest amplification vs copper was below 50khz.  In the near field, it was better at any frequency.
...

Sorry I still don't understand: amplification of what? Amplification means "something out"/"something in" = G > 1.
Then the "far field" is a well-defined concept, not a subjective one. It does not form at less than one wavelength.  At 50 KHz, this means that you have measured it at a distance of 6 Km. I admit I have doubts, so I don't really know what you're talking about.

Quote from: ion on 2019.01.28, 16:45:51
...
Problem is the overwinding also acts as a  turn when threaded through the core, so that alone should cause some  cancellation or addition around the host wire, depending on the phasing. These factors need to be carefully separated out.
...

This is a subtile problem that is rarely seen and goes far beyond your configuration. Even wound around a torus, there is still a simple loop creating a field perpendicular to the surface of the toroid, in addition to the field along the toroid. See here (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Exp%C3%A9riences/Telos/) what I synthetized some years ago, related to the Telos experiment.

To remedy this, one of the connecting wires must return by the same path as the winding, see your modified diagram in the attached image.

This had well been seen in the paper at the IEEE that I mentioned yesterday elsewhere : "Vector Potential Coil and Transformer (https://tinyurl.com/yby4zmfc)" (pdf). Here, the "return wire" for the overwinding is the central conductor.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.29, 09:51:10
@TinMan

The magnetic field is concentric with the central wire, the field lines are in circles around, not spiraling, it cannot induce current in the outer wound wire except if we consider the central wire as a large loop circuit and the outer wound wire as a single large loop like the first one, magnetically coupled to the other, which is a conventional effect with a transformer ratio = 1 (provided there is no resonance).
It is also to be noticed that the central wire is capacitively coupled to the other. Since there is a potential difference between each end of the central wire, it is not surprising to also find a voltage across the outer wound wire.
I don't see possibilities for exotic effects from this two common effects.

Fair enough  O0
You would know a lot more about this stuff than me.
I was just thinking that if the electrons are moving through the wire,and they are what carries the current,then the field around the wire may form some sort of spiral due to the flowing electrons--much like the earth spirals along behind the sun as it travels around the elliptic plane of the solar system,and not orbit the sun as we are taught.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.29, 10:46:31
...
I was just thinking that if the electrons are moving through the wire,and they are what carries the current,then the field around the wire may form some sort of spiral due to the flowing electrons--much like the earth spirals along behind the sun as it travels around the elliptic plane of the solar system,and not orbit the sun as we are taught.

Brad

This requires specifying the concept of field. For me, a field is only a set of scalar values defined in space (field amplitudes). It was Feynman's idea.
When we say that the field moves from A to B, we mean that the field decreases at point A and increases at point B. It is like a luminous point moving on a wall: nothing really moves along the wall, we only have light that fades out at some point and lights up at another nearby point, giving the illusion of movement.

In other words, a field is always static in space but dynamic in time, depending on the location in space.
That said, I agree that such a field, apparently moving because of its changing topology over time, can really move in space charges that are trapped. And the opposite effect is also true.

But this is not the case here if we remain in the approximation of the quasi-stationary states, meaning that the dimensions of the circuit are small in comparison with the shortest wavelength of the working signals.
The consequence is that at every instant of time, the current is the same everywhere in the wire, so that the field is the same everywhere in space. Its intensity varies only in time and in one block, everywhere at the same time in space. It cannot therefore create any apparent movement in space capable of really moving charges. Moreover, only an electric field can move charges when performing work. A magnetic field can only deflect moving charges.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.29, 11:32:20
Moreover, only an electric field can move charges when performing work. A magnetic field can only deflect moving charges.

I would add to this that only an electric field can accelerate charges (TPU).  For a long time I was under the misconception that a magnetic field could move and/or accelerate charges but it doesn't.  Logically then, this would leave us with some type of modulated electric field to move charges in an SM TPU which then these moving charges would create a moving magnet field as SM demonstrated.

Pm

a rotating electric field will also cause a compass to rotate if the needle is conductive

Quote from: partzman on 2019.01.29, 14:43:39
I would add to this that only an electric field can accelerate charges (TPU).  For a long time I was under the misconception that a magnetic field could move and/or accelerate charges but it doesn't.  Logically then, this would leave us with some type of modulated electric field to move charges in an SM TPU which then these moving charges would create a moving magnet field as SM demonstrated.

Pm

Since charges that can move are generally electrons that have spin, have a magnetic dipole moment and act like tiny bar magnets, they can be moved by magnetic fields.  A magnetic dipole within a non-uniform magnetic field can endure a linear force and hence an acceleration.  Of particular interest are the conduction electrons in Fe that are partially responsible for its magnetization, I.e.they can become spin-polarized when the Fe ions become magnetically aligned.  IMO there is much that can be done with Fe wire using this electron spin to get anomalous magneto-electric effects.
Smudge 

Following on from my last post if a Fe rod passes through a toroidal core the electric field from AC current in the toroidal coil will move conduction electrons in the Fe and if that rod has PM's at each end so as to magnetize the rod you will then get some moving magnetization.  Could this be used for making an unusual magnetic motor?

What about a magnetized Fe hoop within a rotating magnetic field?  Can that field create bunching of the conduction electrons with those bunches driven round the hoop at the field rotation rate?  Those bunches will move at much greater speed than drift velocity, can this be used to good effect?  With that hoop passing through four toroidal cores having sequentially phased coil currents you can get similar rotating electron bunches (and hence also bunched electron magnets) creating magnets whirling at enormous speeds well beyond that obtainable mechanically.

So many possibilities!

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.01.29, 16:08:19
Since charges that can move are generally electrons that have spin, have a magnetic dipole moment and act like tiny bar magnets, they can be moved by magnetic fields.  A magnetic dipole within a non-uniform magnetic field can endure a linear force and hence an acceleration...

I agree with that. This only occurs in a non-uniform magnetic field. In all cases, the magnetic field does not work (in the referential of the observer).

When the charges rotate (or spin), they undergo the electric field E=VxB due to their speed. It is this electric field, the only one they can feel, that exerts a force. The main effect of this field is to exert a torque by aligning their rotation plane perpendicular to B, and also to move them by the same force F=q.E (where E=VxB) until they are (quickly) balanced by electrostatic forces from coulombian fields. Then no force is exerted, which is why a magnet in the Earth's constant magnetic field cannot move forward, only rotate.
If the field is not uniform, then the static equilibrium cannot be reached, so the charges move.

The key to understanding is to know that in the Lorentz force F=q.VxB, V is the speed of the charge seen by an observer, the one who also observes the B field. But in the proper referential of the charge, V=0, the Lorentz force does not exist, the charge only sees an electric field E, of intensity VxB where V and B are defined in the observer's referential.
If you put yourself in the position of the charge and take its point of view, everything becomes clearer about what it will do.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.01.29, 15:29:13
a rotating electric field will also cause a compass to rotate if the needle is conductive

You should see the MP4 here: http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/index.php?q=boussole

In this experiment, I had put 2 perpendicular magnets, each powered by two synchronous sine signals of about 1 Hz and out of phase by 90°.
We see that the needle rotates while the field is fixed: we just have the intensity of the field which decreases in front of one magnet while increasing in front of the other, and so on and again, which forces the needle to align with the resultant of the two superposed fields.

At most we can talk of "rotating field" but it's a figure of speech, the field doesn't really rotate.

a rotating electric field and a rotating magnetic field are two different things

The  circular movement of the compass needle is a  not necessarily a proof of rotation of field at the poles. If you begin to move the frequency lower than 1 Hz, you may observe that the needle just moves between one or the other pole and does not have enough momentum to break free and create full rotation.

However, the compass needle when fully rotating is the rotating magnetic field, since it is a pre-magnetized  dipole in rotation about it's neutral point.

edited for hopefully more clarity, but of course I may be wrong about this as my own experiment may have been faulty in some manner.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.29, 17:52:29
You should see the MP4 here: http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/index.php?q=boussole

In this experiment, I had put 2 perpendicular magnets, each powered by two synchronous sine signals of about 1 Hz and out of phase by 90°.
We see that the needle rotates while the field is fixed: we just have the intensity of the field which decreases in front of one magnet while increasing in front of the other, and so on and again, which forces the needle to align with the resultant of the two superposed fields.

At most we can talk of "rotating field" but it's a figure of speech, the field doesn't really rotate.

Well you agree that the resultant of the two fixed field does rotate.  The resultant of two vectors is itself a vector, so in my mind that is a rotating field.
Smudge

If it is the electric field that causes charges (electrons) to move,how exactly dose the homopolar generator work when the magnets are rotated with the copper disk,meaning a non changing uniform field through the disc,and where there is no electric field until current starts to flow through the radius of the disc?.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.29, 22:39:15
If it is the electric field that causes charges (electrons) to move,how exactly dose the homopolar generator work when the magnets are rotated with the copper disk,meaning a non changing uniform field through the disc,and where there is no electric field until current starts to flow through the radius of the disc?.

The magnetic field from the PM comes from electron orbits or spins, and those charges are moving at near light speed, the spin rates are enormous.  It is the movement of the electrons in the disc relative to those enormous speeds that create the effect.  Rotating the magnet at the low spin rate does little to those relative velocities.  Think of the magnet as simply a container of those enormous spins, rotating the container doesn't really have a significant effect, you still have those enormous spins inside and that is what the disc "sees".
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.01.30, 11:20:52
The magnetic field from the PM comes from electron orbits or spins, and those charges are moving at near light speed, the spin rates are enormous.  It is the movement of the electrons in the disc relative to those enormous speeds that create the effect.  Rotating the magnet at the low spin rate does little to those relative velocities.  Think of the magnet as simply a container of those enormous spins, rotating the container doesn't really have a significant effect, you still have those enormous spins inside and that is what the disc "sees".
Smudge

Yes,and so it matters not whether the magnets are stationary or rotating with the disc.

Now,as the field remains the same,and the effect upon the electrons in the disc remains the same,why dose the electron flow direction change with the rotational direction of the disc when the magnets rotate with the disc?

Changing the polarity of the magnets around leading to a change in electron flow direction through the disc is understandable,but when the magnetic field remains the same,and only the rotational direction of the disc is changed, which causes the electrons to flow through the disc in the opposite direction needs more thought i think?.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.30, 13:04:27
...when the magnetic field remains the same,and only the rotational direction of the disc is changed, which causes the electrons to flow through the disc in the opposite direction needs more thought i think?.

It is the Lorentz force that acts on electrons. F=q.VxB. If you reverse the angular speed, the linear speed V becomes -V, so F becomes -F: the force is reversed too.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.30, 13:18:17
It is the Lorentz force that acts on electrons. F=q.VxB. If you reverse the angular speed, the linear speed V becomes -V, so F becomes -F: the force is reversed too.

Well no actually.

The disc and magnets may remain stationary,and only the outer brush rotated around the disc's circumference,and a current will still flow through the disc,and a voltage will be produced across the disc.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.30, 13:53:39
...
The disc and magnets may remain stationary,and only the outer brush rotated around the disc's circumference,and a current will still flow through the disc,and a voltage will be produced across the disc.
...

When the outer brush rotates around the circumference of the disc, it is exactly the same. It is enough to take into account the electrons in the moving circuit. They cross the magnetic field lines so that F=q.VxB still applies, and F is reversed if V or B changes sign (but not both at the same time).

It's a question of relativity. We have a circuit with two parts that move relative to each other, all bathed in a magnetic field. The effect of one onto the other is reciprocal. We don't know which moves or is at rest because it's just a point of view from the observer, the observer can be attached to one or the other referential.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.01.29, 18:10:05
a rotating electric field and a rotating magnetic field are two different things

Not true, just a question of viewpoint. A magnetic field is an electric field seen by an observer moving with respect to the charges of the field source.

All electromagnetism is perfectly explained by relativity. Relative movements make the coulomb field no longer isotropic, it compresses in the direction of movement because of the lengths contraction (see attached picture), hence the transverse magnetic force which is in fact only the electrical force seen by the moving electron.

See for example the explanation for the experience of Ampère wires in this great course from P Bickerstaff, § 14.8.2 on page 236 (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Cours/R.Paul%20Bickerstaff%20-%20Claustrophobic%20physics.pdf).

And as already mentioned, a field does not really rotate because it is not a local phenomenon but local scalars related to a distant phenomenon. Its change is only made from the source, in a finite time. A field cannot therefore rotate as if it were a block. If we really want to understand, we must abandon all these easy images.

Quote
Conversely, two opposite charges moving IN THE SAME DIRECTION constitute electric current in opposite directions  :o   

That's what I said too. Has there been any misunderstanding?
It's the explanation I gave as why it's not possible to detect the current of charges deflected along the z-axis by the Lorentz force, in a dielectrics submitted to both an electric field creating a displacement current in the x-axis and a synchronous magnetic field in the y-axis.
Positive and negative charges move in the same direction, so the net current is null (because each current of charges of opposite sign is in opposite direction).
Perhaps the misunderstanding concerned the word "direction", depending on whether it is applied to charges or to current.

What is very surprising, however, is that the movement of negative electronic clouds is supposed to be of much larger amplitude than that of positive nuclei linked to the dielectric lattice, so the two currents should not cancel each other out.

Quote
...
The Lorentz force accounts for the sign of the charge, so opposite charges will be deflected in opposite directions.
...

Not in my case. You seem to have forgotten that charges are accelerated by an electric field, so they are accelerated in opposite directions but they are bathed in the same magnetic field.
V being opposite, q being opposite, and B identical, F=q.VxB is the same: the two types of charge move in the same direction. Only the direction of the currents are opposite, likely cause of their undetectability.

Quote
The proton is 1830 times heavier then electron so there ought to be some differences.

The question remains: why can't it be observed?

Quote
A rotating magnetic field created between two perpendicular windings driven in quadrature will accelerate charges, but it will not accelerate them in the directions depicted in the diagram below - which you seem to think. 
...

I can't seem to think that for the reason that I've never analyzed this experiment with regard to the issue of charges, but only with regard to the field.

In my answer, I indicated that the magnets increase the field here and reduce it there, and the needle orients itself according to the resultant of the field. It's just to show that a field doesn't really "rotate". We only shape it at a distance by varying the field intensity of each coil, nothing locally rotates, the field of each coil increases and decreases in cooperation and superpose at the position of the compass.

Quote
No, but I know of him

Did you know Stephan Marinov?

Quote
I was responding to the MHD case.
Indeed the Lorentz force has two components: the electric and the magnetic ...but only the magnetic one depends on the relative velocity.
In that case an electric field is the major cause of acceleration. The electric component of the Lorentz force does not depend on V. In your scenario, the acceleration is not due to the relative motion between charges and magnetic field (the magnetic component of the Lorentz force), so indeed F is the same.

You're not talking about the principle of the setup that I'm proposing to test experimentally. Unlike the MHD, it is electrically and not mechanically that I want to highlight the movement of charges under Lorentz force.
Look here at the underlying idea:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3690.msg71088#msg71088

See the diagram. If it is not clear, I will clarify upon request.
The tests, which have been negative so far, lead now to this simple and direct question: why can't an electrical effect be detected between the plates of capacitor 2?

Quote
You might as well apply the same kind of thinking to a spinning bicycle wheel and claim that its rim is not spinning but moving vertically and horizontally
...P.S.
Please realize that every time you write "field" you are referring to a geometric field of forces (iow: a vector field of forces). Forces must act on something and that interaction with that something defines the force.  In electrodynamics a "field" is just a linguistic shorthand for a "field of forces".

I agree only with your P.S. and consider your comparison to be irrelevant ("comparison is not reason"), and here is why.

A bicycle is a physical reality that constitutes an undeformable whole, located in a well-defined volume of space, without any relationship to anything at a distance.

A field is a set of scalars that specify locally for each position in space the effect that a remote system will have on a charge. A field is defined only at a particular point position. A field E=F/q means a local condition that will produce a force F on a charge q at this unique position. But field E has a source that is not local.
If the source changes its field, it will take a time t=d/c for the field to be changed at a distance d. Since this distance d is obviously not the same for all the positions of space where the field is defined, it follows that the topology of the field will be modified during its "update" from the source, it will not be changed as a block, which is indeed proof that the field in a volume of space cannot be considered as a whole that could rotate or move, it is not an independent physical reality.

When a light spot is projected on a wall by a mobile projector that moves it along the wall, no one believes that the photons move along the wall. The photons always come from the projector and only from the projector, and hit the wall. I don't see any point in imagining that differently when it comes to a magnetic or electric field. On the contrary, it is extremely misleading.

Moreover, the approach by the potentials allows the same results to be achieved in terms of describing local effects, demonstrating that it is not even known whether the fields are closer than the potentials to the underlying physical reality they describe. A field, or a potential, is only a mathematical facility to describe local effects without having to take into account the remote source. It's not an object.

While everyone can imagine things as they wish to clarify their ideas, more rigor is needed to share ideas in a scientific context. Explanations by a field that would be an independent blob, animated, in motion or rotation, are childish and misleading, imho they must be avoided except in trivial cases, I was not saying anything more.

F6FLT

One thing has me stumped with the homopolar generator  ???

We know there is a back torque when a load is placed across the output from the disc.
The question is this--we use the example where the magnets are attached to,and rotate with the disc--
Where is the physical brace for the back torque if the magnets are rotating with the disc?

I know it's not the brushes,as in my testing of my small 4 inch homopolar generator,there was no torque at all placed on the brushes when a load was placed across the output,and as there is no other physical bracing for the back torque to act against,i just don't see how the generator bogs down when under load,even though i know it dose.


Brad

IMO it is the spinning electrons within the magnet where the back torque applies its force.  Those electrons "see"the magnetic field coming from the load current flowing through the disc.  It matters not whether the magnet is attached to the disc, the torque is generated inside the magnet on those pesky electrons.
Smudge

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.31, 11:50:18
F6FLT

One thing has me stumped with the homopolar generator  ???

We know there is a back torque when a load is placed across the output from the disc.
The question is this--we use the example where the magnets are attached to,and rotate with the disc--
Where is the physical brace for the back torque if the magnets are rotating with the disc?

I know it's not the brushes,as in my testing of my small 4 inch homopolar generator,there was no torque at all placed on the brushes when a load was placed across the output,and as there is no other physical bracing for the back torque to act against,i just don't see how the generator bogs down when under load,even though i know it dose.


Brad

Brad,

I'm not sure I understood the configuration of your experiments correctly.

Either the brushes and the load are at rest and the disc is rotated, then the disc is slowed down, or the brushes rotate and the disc is fixed, but the load must rotate with the disc so that the experiment is symmetrical and the brushes are slowed down.

The current that causes the reaction can only be consumed when the load is connected in series in the part of the circuit that sees the other part rotating. This is why if you attach a capacitor between the rim and the center of the rotating disc, it will never charge (I checked it  :( ).

A magnet only acts here as an intermediary. It is as in the case of a dynamo where it acts as a mediator between electrical and mechanical energy: the magnet is not affected energetically. To the best of my knowledge, we cannot slow down the spin (nor the angular velocity of orbital electrons, the latter also contributing a little to the magnetic field).

Quote from: F6FLT on 1974.11.28, 18:30:38
To the best of my knowledge, we cannot slow down the spin (nor the angular velocity of orbital electrons, the latter also contributing a little to the magnetic field).

You are right, and that is why those spins can be a source of energy.  In the presence of a changing magnetic field the induced electric vortex tries to slow down that spin and fails to do so, this results in energy being transferred into the field.  This becomes obvious when you consider the inter-atomic field within ferromagnetic material and in particular permanent magnets.  Current theory says that there the H field is in opposition to the B field, but that stems from our use of magnetization M as a spatially continuous attribute that does not allow that inter-atomic space to exist.  Within that space B and H are aligned and of ratio munought, and that applies to both hard and soft materials.  In soft materials the energy stored in that space far exceeds the input from the coils, and that extra energy comes from those electron spins acting as tiny generators.  I have made it my remaining lifetime work trying to extract some of that free energy, but I fear time is rapidly running out, this year I will be 85.
Smudge

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.31, 17:06:26
Brad,

I'm not sure I understood the configuration of your experiments correctly.

Either the brushes and the load are at rest and the disc is rotated, then the disc is slowed down, or the brushes rotate and the disc is fixed, but the load must rotate with the disc so that the experiment is symmetrical and the brushes are slowed down.

The current that causes the reaction can only be consumed when the load is connected in series in the part of the circuit that sees the other part rotating. This is why if you attach a capacitor between the rim and the center of the rotating disc, it will never charge (I checked it  :( ).

A magnet only acts here as an intermediary. It is as in the case of a dynamo where it acts as a mediator between electrical and mechanical energy: the magnet is not affected energetically. To the best of my knowledge, we cannot slow down the spin (nor the angular velocity of orbital electrons, the latter also contributing a little to the magnetic field).

The highlighted is what i am asking--where dose the equal and opposite force come from that slows down the disc ?

So with a normal generator,the equal and opposite force that bogs down the rotor of the generator when a load is applied comes from the field windings them self,which are physically fixed to the generator body. My question is-->what is the physical fixture for the equal and opposite force that bogs down the disc in the homopolar generator when a load is placed across the output ?.

We know it is not the magnets,as we can fix them to the disc,and it still generates power.
I know it is not the brushes,as i have run this experiment before,and no torque was applied to the brushes when a load was placed across the output.

Is it the produced magnetic field of the circuit that acts against the rotor that causes it to bog down.
If so,could we not just put a shield around the circuit to stop this magnetic field ?.


Brad

Quote
The output circuit represents a 1-turn winding.  Have you ever noticed that shielding a 1-turn secondary winding in a transformer does not work?  This is the same...

It would if you cut off the magnetic path to that secondary.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.31, 23:19:53
The highlighted is what i am asking--where dose the equal and opposite force come from that slows down the disc ?
...

A Faraday generator can be synthesized in the form of two half-circuits connected together by sliding contacts, both of which are at least partially surrounded by a common magnetic field B.

Let us take as a reference one of the half parts, we will consider it at rest, and the other moving relatively to it.

The moving part, say here the disk, passes through the magnetic field, thus producing an EMF generated by the Lorentz force along the radius between the two sliding contacts.

If the part at rest is connected to a load, then the EMF produces a current I. In the disk, the current I moves the charges along a radius between the two sliding contacts. These charges are subjected to the Lorentz force, which is transverse to the current, and applies in such a way that it opposes the mechanical force on the charges related to the rotation of the disc. This also results in a field B' opposite to B.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.01, 10:29:30
A Faraday generator can be synthesized in the form of two half-circuits connected together by sliding contacts, both of which are at least partially surrounded by a common magnetic field B.

Let us take as a reference one of the half parts, we will consider it at rest, and the other moving relatively to it.

The moving part, say here the disk, passes through the magnetic field, thus producing an EMF generated by the Lorentz force along the radius between the two sliding contacts.

If the part at rest is connected to a load, then the EMF produces a current I. In the disk, the current I moves the charges along a radius between the two sliding contacts. These charges are subjected to the Lorentz force, which is transverse to the current, and applies in such a way that it opposes the mechanical force on the charges related to the rotation of the disc. This also results in a field B' opposite to B.

Thank you for the explanation  O0


Brad

See GFT's explanation of the homopolar generator.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.02.01, 13:40:56
See GFT's explanation of the homopolar generator.

Who is GFT ?

GFT is Willie Johnson Jr.

He developed a complete unified theory based on gyroscopic force.  I refer to it in my own efforts.

Just do a site search.  He only made a few posts here.

Quote
The proton is 1830 times heavier then electron so there ought to be some differences.

I asked the question on a physics forum. It appears that the differences in inertia between electrons and protons can only be observed experimentally at optical frequencies and above. At RF frequencies, the time constants are too low compared to the speeds and enormous accelerations of both types of charges.

I also had some interesting information. In a dielectric like ferrites, atoms position themselves relative to each other because of the influence of their electronic clouds between them.
So when we think that Lorentz's force moves the electronic clouds in one direction, and the nucleus in the other, you think badly. In fact, whole atoms will also reposition themselves relative to each other, and then we understand much better why the current of positive charges can compensate for that of negative charges despite their different inertia, and why nothing is detected.

We don't have the plans of either the TPU or the Kapanadze machine. The best method is therefore, in my opinion, to try to understand what the basic principle of operation might be.
Even if I don't think these two devices are overunity, it is possible that unusual effects may occur that surprise their builders.

All these devices show many coils that are clearly capacitively coupled, in addition to magnetic couplings, and simultaneously used with various frequencies. Could displacement currents in intercoil dielectrics cause unusual effects? The subject seems to me to have very little coverage in the academic literature.

It would join this thread. We notice that it is easy to pass a current through a dielectric, we obtain it between two plates, simply by applying a potential difference, it is the principle of the capacitor.
But have you tried to induce a current in a dielectric from the EMF of a variable magnetic field, and not from a potential difference?
Until today (maybe) I had tried and failed. For example, the immersion of the coil of an LC oscillator in water, a dielectric of high permeability (ε_r=80), shows no change when one would expect that the current induced in the water-dielectric would disturb either the amplitude or the frequency of the oscillator.
I only recently understood why. The EMF acts on both positive and negative charges, so on a loop, the symmetrical effects compensate each other perfectly, unlike the case of the capacitor where the displacement of charges in the dielectric is stopped at the plates of opposite polarities, creating asymmetry.

Could we then simulate this asymmetry by opposing two EMFs in two dielectric half-circuits, separated by two plates across which a voltage, such as that of a capacitor, would be recovered? See the attached schematic diagram (inductionInDielectric-Principle). Two U-shaped dielectrics are separated by two plates, and EMF of opposite direction are induced in each one, from two coils powered by currents of opposite direction. Each EMF is looped back through the diameter between plates (not shown in the diagram).
At the interface between the two dielectrics, where the displacement currents tend to oppose each other, the plates should recover a potential difference due to the opposition of the two EMFs.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3690.0;attach=30955)

I tried to highlight it experimentally, with a first rough experience. Two coils of about 100 turns of wire are laid over each half of a double U dielectric circuit (ferrite). Copper plates have been plated at the interface of the two dielectrics and are connected to the scope.
I inserted an aluminium foil connected to the ground (removed for the photo), between the coils and the ferrite, to prevent the probable electrical coupling between the coils and the plates.

The result seems positive. I'm clearly observing the signal on the monitor. If I change the direction of the current in a coil, the signal becomes 7 times weaker, but not zero because despite the aluminium screen, there is still a direct capacitive coupling between coils and plates (without the aluminium it is preponderant, we see almost no change).
There may still be experimental biases. A more convincing experiment remains to be done, I'm thinking about it.

Quote
Are these electron bunches influenced more by the B/H field or more by the A field (https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/29521/3/KOK_MagneticVectorPotential.pdf) like in the Aharonov-Bohm effect ?

The electrons bunch because they are spin polarised, they act like tiny magnets and therefore endure a force if within a B field spatial gradient.  They get attracted to the point in the Fe where the field is a maximum, where there is an induced magnetic pole.  Since that pole is moving so does the electron bunch.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.18, 20:20:46
The electrons bunch because they are spin polarised, they act like tiny magnets and therefore endure a force if within a B field spatial gradient.
...
Smudge

Hi Smudge,

Would you be aware of an homopolar generator based on this principle?

Hi F6FLT,
No but elsewhere on this forum I suggested the TPU did this with the bunches driven round the loop at great speed acting like magnetic poles moving at great speed.  Then I offered the suggestion that movement through the Earth's scalar magnetic potential could conjure up forces.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.21, 18:05:08
Hi F6FLT,
No but elsewhere on this forum I suggested the TPU did this with the bunches driven round the loop at great speed acting like magnetic poles moving at great speed.  Then I offered the suggestion that movement through the Earth's scalar magnetic potential could conjure up forces.
Smudge

I share this view about a force through the Earth's scalar magnetic potential (but weak, measurable?).

I found a new type of homopolar generator, very simple and very different from the Faraday disc on two main points, giving about half the voltage with the same magnet, and whose best explanation could be the electron spin in a magnetic gradient. Surprisingly, I found nothing about this kind of device, as if it was unknown. I need searching and testing more before I present it here.
The "electronic spin in a magnetic gradient" is therefore a hot topic for me, all informations are welcome. Thanks for your answer.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.21, 19:55:22
I share this view about a force through the Earth's scalar magnetic potential (but weak, measurable?).

I found a new type of homopolar generator, very simple and very different from the Faraday disc on two main points, giving about half the voltage with the same magnet, and whose best explanation could be the electron spin in a magnetic gradient. Surprisingly, I found nothing about this kind of device, as if it was unknown. I need searching and testing more before I present it here.
The "electronic spin in a magnetic gradient" is therefore a hot topic for me, all informations are welcome. Thanks for your answer.

Here is one that is interested in what you have found :)

Quote from: ion on 2019.02.22, 01:08:46
Here is one that is interested in what you have found :)

Thanks for your interest, Ion. I will prepare the subject.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.21, 19:55:22
The "electronic spin in a magnetic gradient" is therefore a hot topic for me, all informations are welcome.

As I see it if you have a rod of a ferromagnetic conductor (such as Fe) that has a longitudinal B field with a gadient, the conduction electrons will all be either spin up or spin down (i.e. none will be spin sideways).  With the dipole moment of each electron being u_B (the Bohr magneton) each will endure a force F_x=u_B.dB_x/dx.  If there are more spin ups than spin downs then there will be a migration or a current flow.  If the rod is saturated so that there are no spin downs but still has an applied field gradient the force will be equivalent to an electric field of magnitude (u_B/e).dB_x/dx.  An increase in field of 1 Tesla above the saturation level from one end of the rod to the other will be equivalent to an applied voltage of 58 microvolts across the rod.  Of course whether that results in a current flow depends on whether there is an external circuit connected, otherwise it just means that the rod gets more electrons gathered at one end than at the other.  I have already suggested that an Fe etched to form an array of triangular shapes acting as flux concentrators can be connected in series to make a magnetic battery.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.22, 14:24:16
As I see it if you have a rod of a ferromagnetic conductor (such as Fe) that has a longitudinal B field with a gadient, the conduction electrons will all be either spin up or spin down (i.e. none will be spin sideways).  With the dipole moment of each electron being u_B (the Bohr magneton) each will endure a force F_x=u_B.dB_x/dx.  If there are more spin ups than spin downs then there will be a migration or a current flow.  If the rod is saturated so that there are no spin downs but still has an applied field gradient the force will be equivalent to an electric field of magnitude (u_B/e).dB_x/dx.  An increase in field of 1 Tesla above the saturation level from one end of the rod to the other will be equivalent to an applied voltage of 58 microvolts across the rod.  Of course whether that results in a current flow depends on whether there is an external circuit connected, otherwise it just means that the rod gets more electrons gathered at one end than at the other.  I have already suggested that an Fe etched to form an array of triangular shapes acting as flux concentrators can be connected in series to make a magnetic battery.
Smudge

What you write is interesting to me as the SM large 17inch TPU v1 (1996 ver)  uses heavy gauge iron wire around it's outside diameter. This is possibly wound over the top of vertical toroidal winds, such that it only contacts the outer portion of the vertical winds. Lets consider what effect this might have.

Regarding your magnetic battery idea, I did test this using mumetal foil pieces but could not detect an emf even with a very sensitive Kiethley uVolt meter. Maybe we need to modify the experiment.

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.22, 14:24:16
As I see it if you have a rod of a ferromagnetic conductor (such as Fe) that has a longitudinal B field with a gadient, the conduction electrons will all be either spin up or spin down (i.e. none will be spin sideways).  With the dipole moment of each electron being u_B (the Bohr magneton) each will endure a force F_x=u_B.dB_x/dx.  If there are more spin ups than spin downs then there will be a migration or a current flow.  If the rod is saturated so that there are no spin downs but still has an applied field gradient the force will be equivalent to an electric field of magnitude (u_B/e).dB_x/dx.  An increase in field of 1 Tesla above the saturation level from one end of the rod to the other will be equivalent to an applied voltage of 58 microvolts across the rod.  Of course whether that results in a current flow depends on whether there is an external circuit connected, otherwise it just means that the rod gets more electrons gathered at one end than at the other.  I have already suggested that an Fe etched to form an array of triangular shapes acting as flux concentrators can be connected in series to make a magnetic battery.
Smudge

It's interesting but I realize that this can't be the explanation of my homopolar generator which outputs hundreds of mV instead of tens of µV.
I simply forgot that both spin produce opposing effects. Or could it be that in ferromagnetic metals under a magnetic field, the difference between spin-up and spin-down electrons would be augmented?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.22, 16:36:24
It's interesting but I realize that this can't be the explanation of my homopolar generator which outputs hundreds of mV instead of tens of µV.

That 10's of µV applies to plain electron dragging by a non uniform field, it does not apply to the cylindrical homopolar generator which uses v X B.

QuoteI simply forgot that both spin produce opposing effects. Or could it be that in ferromagnetic metals under a magnetic field, the difference between spin-up and spin-down electrons would be augmented?

Exactly what happens and that augmentation is called spin polarization.  I'll dig out the formula relating magnetization to spin polarization.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.22, 18:32:34
That 10's of µV applies to plain electron dragging by a non uniform field, it does not apply to the cylindrical homopolar generator which uses v X B.Exactly what happens and that augmentation is called spin polarization.  I'll dig out the formula relating magnetization to spin polarization.
Smudge

My generator is not based on the principle of the cylindrical homopolar generator. In this case, the voltage should be proportional to the diameter. But when the sliding contact is at the end of the axis instead of the cylinder surface, the same voltage is observed. I did the test with an axis terminated by a cone whose tip engaged in a curved support.
And the voltage is 50% that of a Faraday disc the size of the magnet instead of about 5% that it should be, because the diameter of the axis is 5.5% of the diameter of the disc / magnet.

Hi All
Have any of you tried to use piezoelectric materials in magnetic fields, in order to use Lorentz force in dielectrics due to the mechanical displacement of charges?

What means "NAR"?

Nuclear Acoustic Resonance

was making me itchy that you received no answer !

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.03.08, 16:32:28
Nuclear Acoustic Resonance

was making me itchy that you received no answer !

Thanks, Chet!

Any links to that NAR ?

Quote from: partzman on 2019.01.29, 14:43:39
I would add to this that only an electric field can accelerate charges...

Only if you play the word game that a moving magnetic field generates an electric field and it is only this electric field that accelerates the charges.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.01.29, 14:43:39
For a long time I was under the misconception that a magnetic field could move and/or accelerate charges but it doesn't.

What changed you mind ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.10, 10:21:09
Hi All

A few years ago, while visiting the park of the castle of Le Clos Lucé, France, where Leonardo da Vinci, invited by King Francis I in 1516, finished the last 4 years of his life, I had discovered the model of an invention (see photo) that is not Leonardo's but that he had taken from Archimedes, and which is Archimedes' screw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_screw).

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ri9MKgrqkNk/VXP6LI-kDZI/AAAAAAAAi4A/Lc4h7ZK3iTk/s640/P1020633.JPG)

By turning, with a crank, a tube wound helically along an inclined cylinder whose end is immersed in water, the water can be easily raised.

I wonder how to adapt the idea to the electromagnetic domain. This would make it possible to obtain a direct current from a rotating movement, thus from an alternating current, or a constant field from a variable field.
The idea does not seem to have been studied. The closest I have found is this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6741000), but it is a motor and I'm interested in solid state.

You could use the magnetic Lorentz Force (https://youtu.be/F1CavOGas1Q) (F = q⋅v × B) to unidirectionally accelerate electrically charged particles (e.g. electrons, ions, charged dust, etc...) without any need for a high voltage power supply.

Once you obtain a uniform motion of charges, you have DC.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.10, 16:39:59
I forgot the MHD. I agree, it's really the same principle. I would just like the system to be solid state. In MHD, forces act on the charges of a conductive fluid to provide relative motion.

In MHD¹ (https://youtu.be/2yVlDzbIU5Y) there needs to be current flowing through a conductive liquid for the stationary magnetic field to exert a Lorentz force on it.
In MHD² (https://youtu.be/MnNsVICXMhA) the electric current provides the motion of the charges and the stationary magnetic flux converts that motion to the Lorentz force.

However, the motion of charges (provided by the electric current) is superfluous when it is the magnetic flux that is moving.
In the end, it does not matter which one is moving - it can be the charged particle or the magnetic flux ...or both.  Motion is relative.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.10, 16:39:59
I'm looking for a way so that the forces on the charges provide a current.
We are in 3D: an electric field along X to move electrons back and forth...

Yes, you could accelerate electrons longitudinally with a strong electric field gradient in order to create the relative motion between the stationary transverse magnetic flux and the electrons,
...or you can just move the transverse magnetic flux, while keeping the electrons stationary.  The resulting Lorentz force is the same because motion is relative.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.10, 16:39:59
...to move electrons back and forth in a current I along X, a transverse magnetic field B along Y, synchronous with I, and which deflects electrons perpendicularly, i. e. along Z, always in the same direction.
Therefore, we should detect a current along Z, a kind of full wave rectified current.

Yes, you could do it like this but it is unnecessarily complicated.
BTW: This arrangement also occurs in the self-squaring Hall Effect in solid conductors/semiconductors where the solid Hall plate is subjected to a transverse alternating magnetic flux, which is in phase with the alternating electric current flowing through that plate.  As the result, a unidirectional Hall voltage is generated from an alternating current that supplies both the Hall plate and the coil which generates the transverse magnetic field.

However, you do not need to move the electrons in order for the Lorentz force to be manifested.  You can unidirectionally accelerate even stationary electrons (or electrons moving randomly) by subjecting them to a moving transverse unidirectional magnetic flux.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.29, 11:32:20
A magnetic field can only deflect moving charges.

Motion is relative.  It only matters that they move with respect to each other.
Stationary charges can be accelerated by the moving magnetic flux, too.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.07, 11:22:15
Only if you play the word game that a moving magnetic field generates an electric field and it is only this electric field that accelerates the charges.
What changed you mind ?

As I understand, a moving magnetic field can change the direction of a moving charge but not accelerate a moving charge,

Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2026.01.07, 16:02:18
As I understand, a moving magnetic field can change the direction of a moving charge but not accelerate a moving charge,

In physics, changes of direction are considered accelerations.  For example: motion around a circle is considered an accelerated motion even if the angular velocity is constant.

That was just the physics jargon, but you had straight-line acceleration in mind, didn't you ?
What is your opinion about a moving magnetic flux accelerating a stationary charge ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.07, 16:20:53
In physics, changes of direction are considered accelerations.  For example: motion around a circle is considered an accelerated motion even if the angular velocity is constant.

That was just the physics jargon, but you had straight-line acceleration in mind, didn't you ?
What is your opinion about a moving magnetic flux accelerating a stationary charge ?

Technically, a moving magnetic flux by itself will not move a stationary charge however, as you point out, a moving magnetic flux can create an electric field.  This electric field can then move a stationary charge.  IE, a magnet passing a wire.

Pm

Edit:  There is an exception to this however in a transformer with a constant current in the secondary.

Quote from: partzman on 2026.01.07, 20:38:44
Technically, a moving magnetic flux by itself will not move a stationary charge however, as you point out, a moving magnetic flux can create an electric field.  This electric field can then move a stationary charge.  i.e.: a magnet passing a wire.

This would mean that a moving magnetic flux cannot accelerate a stationary charge directly but it can accelerate the charge indirectly through an electric field acting as an intermediary.
Since there is a 1:1 correspondence between the changing/moving magnetic flux and the electric field, arguing whether the influence of the moving flux on charged particles is direct or through an intermediary, is a losing proposition ...unless an experiment can be devised to illustrate the difference. And at the moment, I can't think of any.

It does make the Lorentz force equation very awkward, though. 
In its expanded form, this equation is a sum of the parallel force due to electric field (F=q⋅E) and the perpendicular^* force (F=q⋅v × B) due to the magnetic field vector (B) and the relative velocity (v) between the transverse^* component of the magnetic field (B) and the charged particle (q). 

The full expression for the Lorentz force is:
F = q⋅E + q⋅v × B
or
F = q⋅(E + v × B)

Without the existence of direct influence of changing/moving flux on charged particles, the Lorentz force term (q⋅v × B) looks silly because the (v) refers to the relative velocity between the transverse component of the magnetic field (B) and the charged particle (q).
Note that (v) denotes a relative velocity between the charged particle and the transverse magnetic flux, thus it does not matter whether you see the charge moving or the magnetic flux moving, ...or both.  All that matters is that they are moving relative to each other.

This begs the following questions:
Q1) What happens when they are both moving at the same speed in the same direction ?
Q2) Does the changing/moving magnetic flux still generate an electric field ?
Q3) If the answer to Q2 is "yes" - does that electric field accelerate the charged particle ?

The answer to the 1^st question is: "Their relative velocity is zero thus the term (q⋅v × B) evaluates to zero, too"
The answer to the 2^nd question is: "It always does when the magnetic field is changing/moving ...however the magnetic field is not moving wrt the charged particle even if it is moving wrt you".
I'll let you answer the 3^rd question...

In the end it does not matter whether you explain the Lorentz Force through an intermediary or not.
All that matters for experiments is that subjecting an electrically charged particle to a changing/moving magnetic flux, in the end causes that particle to be accelerated perpendicularly to that flux ...and it does not matter whether that particle appeared stationary to you initially, as long as there was a relative motion between the transverse component of the magnetic flux and the charged particle.
Do we agree on that ?

Quote from: partzman on 2026.01.07, 20:38:44
There is an exception to this however in a transformer with a constant current in the secondary.

Can you elaborate ?



^* I wrote "perpendicular" and "transverse" because of the cross product (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product) of the two vectors (v × B).

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.07, 22:19:05
This begs the following questions:
Q1) What happens when they are both moving at the same speed in the same direction ?
Q2) Does the changing/moving magnetic flux still generate an electric field ?
Q3) If the answer to Q2 is "yes" - does that electric field accelerate the charged particle ?

The answer to the 1^st question is: "Their relative velocity is zero thus the term (q⋅v × B) evaluates to zero, too"
The answer to the 2^nd question is: "It always does when the magnetic field is changing/moving ...however the magnetic field is not moving wrt the charged particle even if it is moving wrt you".
I'll let you answer the 3^rd question...

My answer is yes if the magnetically generated electric field is positive.

Quote
In the end it does not matter whether you explain the Lorentz Force through an intermediary or not.
All that matters for experiments is that subjecting an electrically charged particle to a changing/moving magnetic flux, in the end causes that particle to be accelerated perpendicularly to that flux ...and it does not matter whether that particle appeared stationary to you initially, as long as there was a relative motion between the transverse component of the magnetic flux and the charged particle.
Do we agree on that ?

Yes.

Quote
Can you elaborate ?

IMO, it would appear via experimentation that the charges in a constant current application as described, are not accelerated by the magnetically generated E-Field.

Quote from: partzman on 2026.01.09, 16:48:56
My answer is yes if the magnetically generated electric field is positive.

But why only positive electric field causes acceleration?  Don't negative electric fields repel negative charges and attract positive charges, too ?
Do you agree that attraction or repulsion is a force ?  Do you remember that a force always causes acceleration unless it is opposed by an equal force in the opposite direction ?

Notice that the only way the polarity of this magnetically generated E-field can reverse wrt you is for your velocity wrt the magnetic field to reverse direction, too.  This is because the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field is determined by the cross product of v × B so this polarity is dependent only on the direction of v since the B-field does not change its direction in this scenario. 

Therefore, when you restrict the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field, then you also restrict the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you.

By answering "yes" to Q3^* with the restriction for only one electric field polarity (positive), you are effectively stating that:
1) a charged particle gets accelerated by a magnetic field even when there is no relative motion between them (conditions in Q1^* imply v=0).
2) and this acceleration happens only when the magnetically generated E-field has one polarity wrt you but not the other, which means one direction of B-field's motion wrt you but not the other (since the polarity of that magnetically generated E-field depends only on the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you).

Do you really mean that ?
Have you noticed where the FoR got switched ?

^* Q1, Q2, Q3 refer to the  questions posed in my previous post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3690.msg118045#msg118045).

Quote from: partzman on 2026.01.09, 16:48:56
IMO, it would appear via experimentation that the charges in a constant current application as described, are not accelerated by the magnetically generated E-Field.

Is it because the CC power supply locks them to the the current stream that it enforces ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.09, 21:26:15
But why only positive electric field causes acceleration?  Don't negative electric fields repel negative charges and attract positive charges, too ?
Do you agree that attraction or repulsion is a force ?  Do you remember that a force always causes acceleration unless it is opposed by an equal force in the opposite direction ?

Notice that the only way the polarity of this magnetically generated E-field can reverse wrt you is for your velocity wrt the magnetic field to reverse direction, too.  This is because the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field is determined by the cross product of v × B so this polarity is dependent only on the direction of v since the B-field does not change its direction in this scenario. 

Therefore, when you restrict the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field, then you also restrict the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you.

By answering "yes" to Q3^* with the restriction for only one electric field polarity (positive), you are effectively stating that:
1) a charged particle gets accelerated by a magnetic field even when there is no relative motion between them (conditions in Q1^* imply v=0).
2) and this acceleration happens only when the magnetically generated E-field has one polarity wrt you but not the other, which means one direction of B-field's motion wrt you but not the other (since the polarity of that magnetically generated E-field depends only on the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you).

Do you really mean that ?
Have you noticed where the FoR got switched ?

Since it was not stated, I assumed the charge to be positive in which case the result would be an acceleration with a positive electric field.  Of course, a negative charge with a positive electric field would result in de-acceleration.  I do not disagree with all the various cases you stated above!

Quote
^* Q1, Q2, Q3 refer to the  questions posed in my previous post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3690.msg118045#msg118045).
Is it because the CC power supply locks them to the the current stream that it enforces ?

If the constant current in the secondary feeds a constant voltage source equal to the secondary voltage, then the current remains constant.  If the constant current in the secondary is connected to a large inductor Lx containing the same current magnitude and Lx>>Ls, then again the current in the secondary will remain constant for all practical purposes.

Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2026.01.10, 16:29:45
Of course, a negative charge with a positive electric field would result in de-acceleration. 

In physics jargon, deceleration and changing direction are both accelerations.

Yes, a deceleration is considered a type of acceleration.   ...a negative one, in the case you seem to be suggesting.
Yes, changing direction is considered a type of acceleration in more than 1 dimension... including a negative acceleration in one dimension and positive acceleration in another.
So in a car, the brake pedal, the gas pedal, throttle and the steering wheel are all considered acceleration controls by science.

I am not making this up.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.10, 19:23:21
In physics jargon, deceleration and changing direction are both accelerations.

Yes, a deceleration is considered a type of acceleration.   ...a negative one, in the case you seem to be suggesting.
Yes, changing direction is considered a type of acceleration in more than 1-dimension... including a negative acceleration in one dimension and positive acceleration in another.
So in a car, the brake pedal, the gas pedal, throttle and the steering wheel are all considered acceleration controls by science.

I am not making this up.

OK, I was not aware of this!

Pm

There is one more that might surprise you.

Below is an animation of the Lorentz force acting on two oppositely charged particles.
Despite that these particles move in opposite directions along the same line, according to mainstream Physics their collective motion constitutes current in one direction (because current is the product of charge and velocity ...and the particles are oppositely charged).

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55323)  Two oppositely charged particles acceleratoed in opposite directions by the Lorenz force caused by the magnetic field of a moving permanent magnet ( C-shaped ).
  Given enough time, these particles will slow down, reverse and attract back together.
  ( Click on the animation to magnify it )

The magnetic field is simply an effect of the relative velocity of charges on their electric fields.
If a charge is moving relative to me, I see a magnetic field.
If the charge is stationary and I am moving relative to it, I see a magnetic field, while another observer attached to the charge does not. The magnetic field has no physical reality, unlike the electric field. It is the worst model of electromagnetism, yet so deeply ingrained in our thinking. So much so that some people see it as a reality.

The only reality for the charge is E, the only field capable of setting it in motion by virtue of F=qE. For the charge, the field B does not exist when it is deflected by the Lorentz force; only a field E, the only reality it sees. B, such that E=V×B, is simply what the stationary observer says exists in space to explain the deflection.

I'm still working on this and have made progress. I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux, which contradicts Maxwell-Faraday's law.

I think I've grasped the actual conditions for creating an inductive electric field compatible with Maxwell-Faraday, which must have its scope limited to these conditions alone. This has led me to the idea that it's possible to induce a direct current, and I hope to find a feasible experiment to verify this.

The electric and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
It is true that they transform into each other depending on the velocity of the reference frame.

However this does not mean that one is more real than the other ...or more fundamental ...or that one can be derived from the other but not vice versa.
I know how to argue these transformations from the perspective of the mainstream electrodynamics - see the copy (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4898.0;attach=55307) of my answers on another forum.
To other members: This (https://youtu.be/j_tsa-uawJ0) is also a good video about electric fields.

You might have developed your own paradigm where you take the charge (and its electric field) as an axiom and derive everything else from it (except space and time, gravity and some nuclear stuff) and that might feel really dear to your heart, but the choice of that axiom does not make it intrinsically fundamental nor complete.  Just because you can describe the divergence of an electric field does not mean that you can define what a field is and why two opposite charges attract (only, how they attract).
I have developed my own paradigm where the electric field is the one-dimensional deviation of our frame of reference created by the motion of matter inward in three dimensions of space and time and the magnetic field is the two-dimensional deviation of the same, and the gravitational field is the three-dimensional deviation of the same.

We can argue theories till the cows come home.
What interests me more is whether you agree that the empirical acceleration of the charged particles is correctly depicted in this animation (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55323) regardles whether you consider the magnetic field of that moving permanent magnet real or not.  This is because that behavior has direct bearing on the experiments performed on this forum.

For example, how does the following magnet carousel influence electrically charged particles that are in the annular path of these rotating air-gaps (of PMs) ?:

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55328)

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.14, 01:42:37
For example, how does the following magnet carousel influence electrically charged particles that are in the annular path of these rotating air-gaps (of PMs) ?:

My answer.  The ring of charged particles (e.g. a circle of copper wire that is electrically charged) lying on that horizontal surface will experience a vertical force within the moving gaps of the horseshoe magnets.  That could lift the thin wire against gravity demonstrating waves moving around the ring.

Smudge

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.13, 22:20:42
I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux, which contradicts Maxwell-Faraday's law.

Presumably you have used relativity formulas to come to this conclusion.  Can you tell us these formulas?

Smudge 

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.14, 08:30:45
The ring of charged particles (e.g. a circle of copper wire that is electrically charged) ...

How is the copper charged initially ?
Does the copper wire need to form a closed loop ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.14, 01:42:37
The electric and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
It is true that they transform into each other depending on the velocity of the reference frame.

However this does not mean that one is more real than the other ...or more fundamental ...or that one can be derived from the other but not vice versa.
...

I completely disagree on this point, for several reasons:
1) The magnetic field is only the result of relativistic transformations of the electric field, so there is no need to use both.
2) Therefore, there is no "duality"; it is the same thing seen from different points of view.
3) Since only the electric field exists in the charge's own reference frame, it is the electric field that is truly fundamental.

Whenever we use the magnetic field in models, we forget that the only force acting on the charges and doing work is the electric field. The consequence is that the model with the magnetic field misleads us, distracting us from understanding causes and effects.
For example, the idea that a variable flux through a circuit induces a current, which is widely held, is false. Only the electric field of the inducing current, seen locally by the charges of the induced circuit, displaces them by F=q.E. The variation in flux is only a concomitant effect of the current in the inductor, generating a B field that has no causal role in induction.

One equation poses a particular problem: the EMF e=−dΦ/dt, because it is a non-local equation. There may be no magnetic flux at the induced charge, only through the circuit, and yet the charge is set in motion. e=−dΦ/dt is less a physical law than a computational tool for engineers, which does not even apply in all cases, as we shall see.

The second problem is the often absurd interpretation of Maxwell-Faraday's law ∇xE=-∂B/∂t, e.g. that it means "the variation of the magnetic field creates an electric field." Wrong! The magnetic field is the result of an electric field seen from a particular frame of reference, and when this electric field varies, it directly creates the induction effect in the frame of reference of the induced charge. In this frame of reference, there is no need for the unnecessary intermediary B in the frame of reference of the fixed observer.

However, an essential point to remember about this law is the notion of curl. In French, 'curl' is called 'rotationnel' (rotational), which is more explicit. Something must indeed "rotate" to drive the charges of an induced circuit, or move if the circuit is linear. However, the formulation by ∂B/∂t has obscured this essential point: what "rotates" in the inductor is the charge density linked to the propagation of the signal in the conductor. This density is not constant along the inductor circuit. When you establish a PD at the input of an inductor, the current is generated instantly at the input, but only appears after a time t=d/v at a distance d from the input of the circuit, with v being the speed of propagation of the signal in the circuit. We therefore have a considerable current gradient along the circuit, and thus a gradient in charge density. This gradient creates a dipolar electric field, with a component parallel to the circuit, which is seen as the electric field of induction in a coupled circuit. What rotates is this variation in charge density linked to the propagation time.

It is clear that if nothing like this rotates, there will be no induction. Such a case is that of a rotating charged ring. We therefore have a circular current. If the rotation alternates in one direction and then the other, then Maxwell-Faraday tells us that the magnetic field created is variable and should therefore induce a current in a coupled loop.  The experiment is difficult to carry out in practice, but I maintain that no induction will be possible in this diagram, because nothing is rotating. Admittedly, the charged ring rotates, but since all the charges are at the same speed, the field is invariant under rotation. A snapshot of the charges shows no variation in charge density along the ring, so there is no field that could cause the charges in an induced circuit to rotate.

From this, we can understand another misinterpretation of induction: "the induced electric field cannot derive from a potential." Wrong! Why do we say this? If you see the electric field around the induced circuit in a snapshot, it is a spatially constant field (we are in the quasistatic approximation), its gradient is zero, so by definition it cannot derive from a potential.
If we accept that the idea of "curl" in Maxwell-Faraday's equation is correct, which I am convinced it is, and that the only thing rotating in a conventional current obtained from a generator is the current density due to the "update" delay of the current variation, then we do indeed have a potential difference at the charge level, otherwise there would be no reason for it to move forward, since the system could no longer minimize the potential (principle of least action).
The big mistake is to say that in the quasi-stationary case, the current is the same everywhere in the circuit. We have ignored the causes of the induced field, the rotation of the charge density in the inductor circuit, but kept a necessary variation that we have modeled by ∂B/∂t. The problem is that we can have ∂B/∂t not equal to zero, but resulting from a current without rotation of charge density (case of the charged ring at variable speed), in which case Maxwell-Faraday no longer applies.

If we take into account the variation in density rotating in the inductor circuit and driving the charges in the induced circuit, then it is clear that the induced field seen at each charge does indeed derive from a potential. This is why the effect of the current in an inductor circuit powered by a generator, on the induced circuit without a generator, is strictly identical to the effect of the current in the induced circuit on the inductor circuit: the effect is completely reciprocal because the mechanism is the same (the one we see, albeit poorly, in Lenz's law).

So, to understand that E dependent on a generator or E derived from VxB both derive from a potential seen by the charge, a mechanical analogy is very useful. It is the one that compares the skier and the windsurfer.
The skier descends a long slope, which is the PD of the generator.
The windsurfer offshore follows the swell (aided here by the wind because the swell is not sufficient, which is the only difference in the analogy). So it seems as if he is constantly descending a slope, but the slope is moving forward. This forward-moving slope is equivalent to the potential difference that rotates in the induced circuit. I have done a lot of windsurfing, and when you are on the slope of the swell, you see a slope exactly as when you are skiing. You really feel like you are descending it indefinitely, and yet you remain at the same potential, the surface of the water.

I made this diagram to understand what is happening. The diagram is approximate (chatGPT), you have to consider the vertical axis as virtual, and see the gutter turning around the axis and driving the charge. The charge always remains at the same potential (same height). But it is indeed a potential difference, the slope, that drives it. That is induction.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.13, 22:20:42
The magnetic field is simply an effect of the relative velocity of charges on their electric fields.
If a charge is moving relative to me, I see a magnetic field.
If the charge is stationary and I am moving relative to it, I see a magnetic field, while another observer attached to the charge does not. The magnetic field has no physical reality, unlike the electric field. It is the worst model of electromagnetism, yet so deeply ingrained in our thinking. So much so that some people see it as a reality.

The only reality for the charge is E, the only field capable of setting it in motion by virtue of F=qE. For the charge, the field B does not exist when it is deflected by the Lorentz force; only a field E, the only reality it sees. B, such that E=V×B, is simply what the stationary observer says exists in space to explain the deflection.

I'm still working on this and have made progress. I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux, which contradicts Maxwell-Faraday's law.

I think I've grasped the actual conditions for creating an inductive electric field compatible with Maxwell-Faraday, which must have its scope limited to these conditions alone. This has led me to the idea that it's possible to induce a direct current, and I hope to find a feasible experiment to verify this.

Damn F6FLT, I have never heard anyone explain what you have so well in so few words. Keep doing what your doing.

@F6

I have asked you a question about an empirical system.
I will not engage with you if you refuse to answer my questions.

F6FLT

QuoteSo, to understand that E dependent on a generator or E derived from VxB both derive from a potential seen by the charge, a mechanical analogy is very useful. It is the one that compares the skier and the windsurfer.
The skier descends a long slope, which is the PD of the generator.
The windsurfer offshore follows the swell (aided here by the wind because the swell is not sufficient, which is the only difference in the analogy). So it seems as if he is constantly descending a slope, but the slope is moving forward. This forward-moving slope is equivalent to the potential difference that rotates in the induced circuit. I have done a lot of windsurfing, and when you are on the slope of the swell, you see a slope exactly as when you are skiing. You really feel like you are descending it indefinitely, and yet you remain at the same potential, the surface of the water.

I used to windsurf as well. The last couple years I got into designing and building my own hydrofoil boards including mono-foils. A good high aspect hydrofoil can surf swells as small as 24" with little problem. It's interesting to consider the length of a sail board in relation to the length and height of the swell. Then consider the chord of my hydrofoil is only 9" and the width 36". The drop in the height of the swell were riding could be less than 2" across the chord of the foil. It's even more cool being 30" above the water and looking down to see an bright aqua marine colored foil slicing through the water only a few inches under the surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVyTAqUMd0k&t=160s
Hydrofoil | Wake Foil Slingshot Hover Glide (2020)

If we could apply this principal to electric circuits who knows what would be possible?...

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.14, 17:47:42
@F6

I have asked you a question about an empirical system.
I will not engage with you if you refuse to answer my questions.

Extravagant hypothesis, I have never refused to answer questions. There was no indication that this was a personal question and that I had a deadline to respond.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.07, 22:19:05
...
the Lorentz force term (q⋅v × B) looks silly because the (v) refers to the relative velocity between the transverse component of the magnetic field (B) and the charged particle (q).
...

The velocity v is not defined in relation to a field but in relation to an observer.

In F=q.vxB, v is the velocity of the charge relative to the observer who sees the field B.
v has no relation to the source of the field, and even less to a field, which does not allow a reference frame to be defined.

If we fix the observer at one end of the air gap of the magnetic carousel, he sees a static field B directed horizontally. Let us fix this axis as the x-axis. In this field, he sees a charge arriving at velocity v in the horizontal plane as well, but on the y-axis, which will therefore be deflected transversally towards z, either upwards or downwards depending on its sign.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
I have never refused to answer questions.

Not explicitly but when you make 3 long posts without a direct answer to the question then it is tantamount to ignoring the question.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
There was no indication that this was a personal question

Yes there was because the question was asked in a post that was a reply to your earlier post and I used a question mark.
Questions that are not asked in a reply to you are not personally addressed to you ...as well as any questions explicitly addressed to "@All" or "@OtherMember"

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
...and that I had a deadline to respond.

There is no temporal deadline, but you should not post anything on another subject in the same thread without answering a pending question first.
When a question is pending, consider the thread locked to your posts that do not contain a direct answer or clarifying questions. If multiple members ask you questions then they should be answered on first-come first-serve basis.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
The velocity v is not defined in relation to a field but in relation to an observer.

Obviously when I post an animation and refer to a velocity in it, it is the camera's frame of reference, unless otherwise specified.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
In F=q.vxB, v is the velocity of the charge relative to the observer who sees the field B.

...and in this animation, the initial velocity of the charges is zero wrt to the camera.
The question was about the effect on the charges when the experiment is concluded ...also wrt the camera.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
v has no relation to the source of the field, and even less to a field, which does not allow a reference frame to be defined.

What ?  The animation clearly shows two C-shaped magnets moving and two charged particles and that was all that was given.  I deliberately did not ask about any "fields" in this animation.  I just asked about the effect that this magnet carousel will have on the charged particles.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
If we fix the observer at one end of the air gap of the magnetic carousel, he sees a static field B directed horizontally.
Let us fix this axis as the x-axis.

That is the way you think about it, but the animation's frame of reference was its camera - not an observer sitting on the magnet.
You changed the frame of reference to aid your thinking - this is fine and you do not even have to share it. You method of analysis does not constitute a direct answer.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 20:08:13
In this field, he sees a charge arriving at velocity v in the horizontal plane as well, but on the y-axis, which will therefore be deflected transversally towards z, either upwards or downwards depending on its sign.

This gives me an answer wrt to a hypothetical abserver sitting on the magnet.  This is not what I asked for.
The proper answer would describe the force or acceleration or motion of the charged particles at the end of the experiment in the camera's frame of reference.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.14, 16:10:05
Such a case is that of a rotating charged ring. We therefore have a circular current. If the rotation alternates in one direction and then the other, then Maxwell-Faraday tells us that the magnetic field created is variable and should therefore induce a current in a coupled loop.  The experiment is difficult to carry out in practice, but I maintain that no induction will be possible in this diagram, because nothing is rotating. Admittedly, the charged ring rotates, but since all the charges are at the same speed, the field is invariant under rotation. A snapshot of the charges shows no variation in charge density along the ring, so there is no field that could cause the charges in an induced circuit to rotate.

But when Henry Rowland spun a charged ring then he was able to detect a magnetic field from it with a compass ( here (https://youtu.be/1BooFKijb2U?t=3226) is an AI slop description of this experiment for truck drivers ).

Later, Wilhelm Roentgen and Alfred Eichenwald refined this experiment using different setups with charged spheres or cylinders.
They also detected a magnetic field caused by the motion of electric charges on the surfaces of these spinning objects.

Are you claiming that spinning charged objects do generate a magnetic field but this field is somehow different so when its magnitude is made to vary (by varying the angular velocity of the electrically charged object that generates it) then this time-variant field is unable to induce EMF or current in a detector coil ?
... or do you disagree with Rowland, et al, that spinning charged objects generate magnetic field at all ?

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.14, 19:44:06
F6FLT
I used to windsurf as well. The last couple years I got into designing and building my own hydrofoil boards including mono-foils. A good high aspect hydrofoil can surf swells as small as 24" with little problem. It's interesting to consider the length of a sail board in relation to the length and height of the swell. Then consider the chord of my hydrofoil is only 9" and the width 36". The drop in the height of the swell were riding could be less than 2" across the chord of the foil. It's even more cool being 30" above the water and looking down to see an bright aqua marine colored foil slicing through the water only a few inches under the surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVyTAqUMd0k&t=160s
Hydrofoil | Wake Foil Slingshot Hover Glide (2020)

If we could apply this principal to electric circuits who knows what would be possible?...

Hydrofoils are cool. This is a great demonstration of what DC induction could be: the creation of this mini wave.
However, there is one important difference in the case of induction: the speed of the wave. In the case of a variable current, it moves forward (and backward) at a speed v close to c, of the order of 0.8c, the speed of signal propagation in the circuit, and not at the considerably slower speed of the charges.

I am still perplexed on this point. The wave, a potential difference, travels much faster than the charge, but even if the wave overtakes the charge, statistically the charges are carried along. A first idea is that the wave is not spatially symmetrical, probably compressed at the front, precisely because of a speed close to c.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.14, 23:53:45
But when Henry Rowland spun a charged ring then he was able to detect a magnetic field with a compass ( here (https://youtu.be/1BooFKijb2U?t=3226) is an AI slop description of this experiment for truck drivers ).

Later, Wilhelm Roentgen and Alfred Eichenwald refined this experiment using different setups with charged spheres or cylinders.
They also detected a magnetic field caused by the motion of electric charges on the surfaces of these spinning objects.

Are you claiming that spinning charged objects do generate a magnetic field but this field is somehow different so that when it is made to vary (by varying the angular velocity of the electrically charged object that generates it) then this time-variant field is unable to induce EMF or current in a detector coil ?
... or do you disagree with Rowland, et al, that spinning charged objects generate magnetic field at all ?

Read what I wrote more carefully:
"I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux"

I agree with you that a charged ring does indeed produce a magnetic field; this has been verified experimentally.

However, if its angular velocity varies, it will not create induction despite the fact that the magnetic field is variable. This implies limiting the validity of Maxwell-Faraday's equation to currents from a generator. Only currents with spatial variation along the circuit can induce a current in a coupled circuit, so not the current from a charged ring. This is my thesis.
A snapshot of a charged ring rotating at variable speed shows no variation in current along the ring, while a snapshot of a circuit powered by generator current does show variation, due to the finite propagation time of the signal in the circuit.

The only way to invalidate this idea is to produce an experiment demonstrating a current induced by a charged ring at variable angular velocity, not to invoke the theory that the idea challenges.

This experiment is difficult to carry out. It is much more interesting to use the idea to produce effects not expected by Maxwell-Faraday's equation, which will validate or invalidate the idea depending on the results. That is what I am working on, and one of the effects is the possibility of inducing a direct current. I have the mathematics that allows us to move from a propagating current gradient (the case of an ordinary current in a circuit, not that of the charged ring) to a charge density gradient, to its electrical dipole field, and to the influence of this field on the induced charges.

As for the magnetic carousel, I answered the question with my method. If one thing is legitimate, it is to grant everyone the freedom to use their own method to solve a problem. The choice of the reference frame in which the analysis is carried out is part of this.
If it is not the solution to the problem that interests you, but a difficulty or a possible paradox in a particular framework of the analysis, you will need to rephrase the question.

One final remark: the subject of Archimedes' screw that I raised earlier, as we will have understood, concerns this missing link in the induction of a direct current. The posts I have just made here, following a recent insight triggered by the question of the charged ring, even if they do not respond to other posts that may have been made recently, are along these lines and are perfectly relevant to the subject.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 09:43:09
...cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis,even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux
...
However, if its angular velocity varies, it will not create induction despite the fact that the magnetic field is variable.

It is nothing unusual (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55339) when non-zero dB/dt does not induce anything in a sensor coil, but when non-zero dΦ/dt does not induce anything in a sensor coil, then this is big news.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 09:43:09
This implies limiting the validity of Maxwell-Faraday's equation to currents from a generator.

Yeah, this needs to be tested empirically.  It would mean a new type of field that affects a compass needle but does not affect a sensor coil.  What about Hall effect sensors ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.15, 09:51:01
It is nothing unusual when non-zero dB/dt does not induce anything in a sensor coil, but when non-zero dΦ/dt does not induce anything in a sensor coil, then this is big news.
...

A dΦ/dt does not induce any current, since a magnetic field cannot perform work.

Variable current => dΦ/dt
Variable current => induction
But dΦ/dt =/=> induction

Two effects with a common cause do not imply a causal relationship between the two effects; it is simply a matter of formal logic.

It is the nature of the current that makes the difference, depending on whether it propagates along the circuit at a finite speed or not. That is the "big news" to be verified.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 10:06:38
Two effects with a common cause do not imply a causal relationship between the two effects; it is simply a matter of formal logic.

That is true but they are not incompatible with the causal relationship between the two effects, either.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 10:06:38
It is the nature of the current that makes the difference, depending on whether it propagates along the circuit at a finite speed or not. That is the "big news" to be verified.

Oh yeah!

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.15, 10:26:46
That is true but they are not incompatible with the causal relationship between the two effects, either.

They are incompatible. I have given one reason for this: a magnetic field does not produce work, so its flux cannot set a charge in motion.
A second reason is that this would be a non-local effect. The flux variation can occur at a distance from the induced charges.

There are much stronger objections to my thesis. I raise them myself. For example:
-------------------
Let us bring a cylindrical magnet close to a conductor loop, both being coaxial.
Since the cylindrical magnet is equivalent to a current loop with no propagation effect, there should be no induction. However, there is induction => rejection of my thesis.
-------------------
(Perhaps, even though I have an idea for responding  :) ).

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 10:39:33
I have given one reason for this: a magnetic field does not produce work.

That's true only for time-invariant fields.  You are overextending this property to time-variant fields so I am ignoring the extension.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 10:39:33
A second reason is that this would be a non-local effect. The flux variation can occur at a distance from the induced charges.

I think you are conflating Maxwell's third law with the integral form of Faraday's law of induction ℰ = ∮E⋅dl according to which the EMF induced in a closed circuit does not depend on the distance between the source of the changing magnetic flux and that circuit.

This apparent non-locality is resolved by the local, differential form of the same Maxwell's law:
∇×E = -∂B/∂t
Which demonstrates that the electric field is produced locally - only where and when the magnetic field (B) is actually changing.
The integral form integrates this local effect over the entire surface spanned by the circuit Φ=∫∫B⋅dA, which is why the total EMF depends only on the net change of the flux threading that circuit ...and seems insensitive to distance.

P.S.
Although you have not mentioned anything about it, I'd like to add that the current induced in a shorted loop cannot be calculated from the Ohm's law, i.e.: just dividing the EMF by the resistance of the loop i=ℰ/R,  This is because such operation completely ignores the internal back-flux that opposes the change attempted by the external flux and fails arithmetically for superconducting shorted loops where it causes division by zero or infinite induced current at the limit.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.15, 11:04:19
That's true only for time-invariant fields.  You are overextending this property to time-variant fields so I am ignoring the extension.

That's always true. See below.

Quote
I think you are conflating Maxwell's third law with the integral form of Faraday's law of induction ℰ = ∮E⋅dl according to which the EMF induced in a closed circuit does not depend on the distance between the source of the changing magnetic flux and that circuit.

This apparent non-locality is resolved by the local, differential form of the same Maxwell's law:
∇×E = -∂B/∂t
Which demonstrates that the electric field is produced locally - only where and when the magnetic field (B) is actually changing.
The integral form integrates this local effect over the entire surface spanned by the circuit Φ=∫∫B⋅dA, which is why the total EMF depends only on the net change of the flux threading that circuit ...and seems insensitive to distance.

∇×E = -∂B/∂t : I agree, it is local. But this equality does not prove that ∂B/∂t is the cause of E; it could just as easily be ∇×E that is the cause of dB/dt. This equality, by definition, simply tells us that they are the same thing. ∂B/∂t IS an electric field per unit length. Indeed, the dimensional equation for an electric field is M L T⁻³ I⁻¹. For ∇×E and for ∂B/∂t, it is M T⁻³ I⁻¹, both are equivalent to electric fields per unit length. The same reality expressed in two different ways.

This is a consequence of the displacement of charges, and that magnetic and electric fields are mutually derived by Lorentz transformation. The electric field, when variable, is such that its curl is equal to -∂B/∂t. Same reality

However apart from a mechanical force, the only force capable of doing work on a charge is F=q.E. And this is clear when we write E=vxB: the displacement being orthogonal to B, W provided by B is 0.

See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism
"The requirement that the equations remain consistent when viewed from various moving observers led to special relativity [...] The Coulomb force was generalized to the Lorentz force. [...] In other words, the electric field in the other frame does not depend on the particular distribution of the source charges, only on the local value of the electric field in the first frame at that point. Thus, the electric field is a complete representation of the influence of the far-away charges."
and : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity
Everything I say follows from this (except the question of the charged ring at a variable angular speed).

Quote
P.S.
Although you have not mentioned anything about it, I'd like to add that the current induced in a shorted loop cannot be calculated from the Ohm's law, i.e.: just dividing the EMF by the resistance of the loop i=ℰ/R,  This is because such operation completely ignores the internal back-flux that opposes the change attempted by the external flux and fails arithmetically for superconducting shorted loops where it causes division by zero or infinite induced current at the limit.

I agree.

Following my reflections on inducing a direct current, I began to wonder about forces derived from potential, such as the action of a generator on charges in a circuit, and those that are not, or are not supposed to be, such as the effect of induction.
Apart from forces where loss issues are involved, particularly through friction, and quantum mechanics, such cases are rare.
In this context, I asked Gemini about the Lorentz force. Here is his answer:

Could the Lorentz force  be a fictitious force like Coriolis?

--------------------------
The short answer is: **Yes, absolutely.**

Within the framework of **General Relativity** and **gauge theories**, the Lorentz force can be interpreted exactly like the Coriolis force: a force that appears because we are not using the "correct" coordinate system or the "correct" geometry to describe motion.

Here is how we bridge the gap between the two:

1. The Striking Mathematical Analogy

If you compare the two formulas, the structure is identical:

* Coriolis: Fc = 2m(vxΩ)
* Lorentz: Fm=q(vxB)

In both cases, the force is perpendicular to the velocity and does no work. In classical mechanics, we say Coriolis is "fictitious" (due to the rotation of the frame) and Lorentz is "real" (due to a field). However, this distinction fades in advanced physics.

2. The Lorentz Force as "Curvature"
[...]
[I skipped answer 2, which was too 'science fiction', a positive answer but not within the framework of relativity, only introducing a 5th dimension.]

3. Gauge Forces: "Connection" Forces

In modern physics, forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong) are called **gauge forces**. They appear to maintain the invariance of physical laws during a change of "internal reference frame" (the phase of the wave function).

*Coriolis* appears when we change our spatial reference frame (rotation).
*Lorentz* appears when we change our phase reference frame ( gauge).

From this perspective, the Lorentz force is a "correction force" necessary to keep the equations consistent, just as the Coriolis force is a necessary correction in a rotating carousel.

4. The Crucial Difference (Why we distinguish them)

Despite this theoretical kinship, a major practical difference remains:

1. **Universality:** The Coriolis force (and gravity) acts on **mass**. It accelerates all bodies in the same way (the equivalence principle).
2. **Selectivity:** The Lorentz force only acts on bodies possessing a **charge **. A neutron does not feel it.

It is this difference that prevents us from saying that electromagnetism is *purely* a property of classical 4-dimensional spacetime. One must "add" something to space (an internal space or an extra dimension) for it to become "fictitious."
--------------------------------------------------

His conclusion is less radical than his premises, but in any case we can conclude that the Lorentz force is a fictitious force linked to the reference frame we take, which is not 'inertial' in the electromagnetic sense.  Indeed, the Lorentz force is only visible in a reference frame immersed in a magnetic field, in the same way that the Coriolis force is only visible in a reference frame immersed in a gravitational field.
All of this reinforces my belief that, for any description of an electromagnetic effect, we should use a reference frame that is outside any magnetic field. This is the only way to obtain a description that does not depend on the observer.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.24, 10:00:51...... the Coriolis force is only visible in a reference frame immersed in a gravitational field.

Why do you say that?  The Coreolis force is in no way connected to a gravitational field.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.24, 14:19:40
Why do you say that?  The Coreolis force is in no way connected to a gravitational field.

Smudge

I was thinking about the Coriolis force on Earth.
For it to exist, the object must be moving at a certain speed on the surface of the rotating system. Without a force to keep it moving on the surface, there would be no Coriolis force, and the moving object would travel in a straight line.
But you're right, it's true that gravity is not theoretically essential; all that is needed is a vertical force to keep the object on the surface. All the models we see implicitly assume that objects are subject to gravity (objects on a rotating disc, for example). I would be curious to see a model of Coriolis force that does not implicitly include gravity.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.24, 10:00:51
It is this difference that prevents us from saying that electromagnetism is *purely* a property of classical 4-dimensional spacetime. One must "add" something to space (an internal space or an extra dimension) for it to become "fictitious."

Why limit the addition to space ?
Why keep the space privileged and multidimensional while keeping time as one-dimensional ?  Is it only because you can't see it with your material eyes or wrap your mind around it ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.26, 06:42:48
Why limit the addition to space ?
Why keep the space privileged and multidimensional while keeping time as one-dimensional ?  Is it only because you can't see it with your material eyes or wrap your mind around it ?

Unclear question. I did not mention separate space or time, but rather a 4D spacetime.
Currently, the state of knowledge is that our universe has four dimensions. No definitive theory has established that there are other dimensions; there are only hypotheses to that effect. I am sticking to what we know. In a 4D universe, the Lorentz force cannot be expressed as a curvature similar to that used in relation to gravity. This would require an additional dimension, which is what Gemini said, and I am convinced that he is right.

When we say that a force "does not derive from a potential," such as induced electromotive force, we forget to mention that this concept depends on the frame of reference. A force may derive from a potential in one frame of reference but not in another.

Faraday came to the conclusion that ∇xE=-∂B/∂t based on his observation of the current in a macroscopic circuit. The frame of reference is that of the observer who sees the circuit at rest.
But if the frame of reference is taken on each charge in the induced circuit, each charge may well see locally a force derived from a potential such as a rotating PD, with the corollary that ∇xE=0.
The two points of view are compatible, but since it is what the charges are subjected to, from their point of view, that interests us, the second is more relevant and opens up interesting perspectives, such as the induction of direct current.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.26, 10:47:11
Unclear question. I did not mention separate space or time, but rather a 4D spacetime.

So what?   You still mentioned adding something to space but not time.  That's not treating them on par.
Spacetime is a conflation of space and time into one reference system.
When space and time are given their separate reference systems, then motion's degrees of freedom are increased to give rise to what you call fictitious forces, ...or fields of forces.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.26, 10:47:11
Currently, the state of knowledge is that our universe has four dimensions.

It is a state of current dogma.
A gravitating material observer is unable to distinguish a pseudoscalar from a scalar.
The normalization of any deviation from a pseudoscalar temporal aspect of motion manifests itself as a distortion of the spatial aspect of motion and a fictitious force.

Gemini and I know the definition of spacetime, which is given by relativity. To take relativity, which is knowledge, as a "dogma" is to misunderstand the difference between a scientific theory and a religion. See Karl Popper and the notion of falsiability (https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/falsifiability-rule). Playing with words, especially excessive or derogatory ones, does not lead to any serious contradiction.

An observer in gravity knows that he is in gravity. This knowledge means that he does not confuse a fictitious force with a real force, and that is why physics makes a difference. However, it is interesting, particularly because we live on a rotating and massive object, to express the effects we see from our own point of view, from an inertial reference frame, because then they become the same for all inertial observers, and conversely to do this 'normalisation' that you mention.
The question is, 'can we perform this "normalisation" for the Lorentz force?'

Genimini replies:
"1. **Universality:** The Coriolis force (and gravity) acts on **mass**. It accelerates all bodies in the same way (the equivalence principle).
2. **Selectivity:** The Lorentz force only acts on bodies possessing a **charge **. A neutron does not feel it.
It is this difference that prevents us from saying that electromagnetism is *purely* a property of classical 4-dimensional spacetime. One must "add" something to space (an internal space or an extra dimension) for it to become 'fictitious.'"

Gemini only says that the Coriolis force (and gravity) can be 'coded' into spacetime as a fictitious force, but not the Lorentz force. To code it, why add a dimension to space rather than time, you'll have to ask him, but it doesn't really matter since we can view spacetime as four spatial dimensions because ct is a spatial dimension and we can always transform t into ct since c is a constant. This seems entirely secondary to me, the important point being that we must add an extra dimension if we want to be able to talk about curvature in relation to the Lorentz force. Gemini says no more than that, and neither will I.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.27, 08:39:29
Gemini and I know the definition of spacetime, which is given by relativity. To take relativity, which is knowledge, as a "dogma" is to misunderstand the difference between a scientific theory and a religion. 

I agree with special relativity, but not with general relativity.  The phrase "fabric of space and time" is totally abhorrent to me as it objectifies reference systems.
I consider the Maxwell's equations (including the Lorentz forces) as 4 solutions to ∇F=J.
I consider space an illusion created by multidimensional motion at c as defined by the division of two trivectors in PGA.
The same goes for time that I consider totally symmetric to space, possessing the same amount of dimensions. This does not mean that these two aspects of motion share the same coordinate system, as the word "spacetime" implies.
Because of this I have come to the conclusion that 4D spacetime is myopic dogma exclusive to our material gravitating point of view.

Conversely, an antimatter version of you would lecture me on the difference between science and religion while gravitating inward in multidimensional time and expanding outward pseudoscalarly in our space and being being absolutely convinced and relishing in the "knowledge" that our space is devoid of directions (and thus scalar), while our time is multidimensional. Because of this he would call our space his time, and our time his space ...and most likely he would join these two reference systems into his own version of "timespace".

Oh, I can still argue with you within the confines of the mainstream "spacetime" dogma, but I have been down this road and I know exactly where it leads - i.e.: the place we find ourselves in now.  I find the entire paradigm of space as an object in which we swim as fish in an aquarium, myopic, boring and limited - which is the reason why don't engage with your ideas intensively within that limited conceptual framework.

@Verpies

There is nothing to prevent us from having an alternative theory, and you know that I question Maxwell-Faraday's equation. But whatever new theory is presented, it must:

• explain at least what current theories or the theory it claims to replace explain.
• be as general or more general than the theory it replaces.
• be compatible with it on observational results, within the margins of uncertainty (e.g. the attraction of massive bodies in 1/r² and not 1/r3).
• explains facts not explained by current theories and/or predicts new experimentally verifiable facts and/or predicts divergences in results from known theories, i.e. be innovative but only in the context of the last point:
• be capable of producing calculations that can be compared with measurements, demonstrating that it is indeed innovative.

In all other cases, a theory is useless, even harmful (except for personal convenience, or temporarily as a stepping stone to another theory as described).

Theories such as Maxwell's electromagnetism or relativity have proven themselves by giving rise to remarkable technologies. We use these theories to our advantage, but we can also question them, precisely because they are not dogmas; they are falsifiable. The dogma is to label them as dogma, as this label is not falsifiable. Questioning them requires much more than fiction, as in the Bible, where strings of words appeal to the imagination but have no operational meaning, such as talking about the value of prayer without ever being able to measure its effects.

That is why, in my Maxwell-Faraday challenge, I am looking for an experimental way to induce a direct current in a coil, which I believe is possible and would prove the limitations of classical theories.

I invite everyone to use this same method. Until I have produced a coherent model that meets these criteria, or at least an experiment that cannot be explained by classical theories, which requires understanding them, I would find it ridiculous to denigrate classical theories, which have proven themselves, and indecent to criticise the great minds that conceived them. I would feel like a yapping dog pissing at the foot of a cathedral, incapable of building one myself.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.27, 10:12:36
I agree with special relativity, but not with general relativity.
...

On the one hand, general relativity is a set of tensors that allows special relativity to be applied locally in an accelerated medium. Accepting SR implies accepting this part of GR, which is simply a correction for the applicability of SR in this medium.
On the other hand, GR is also a model in which gravity is interpreted as a geometric property of space-time. I suppose this is what you are contesting. It is indeed surprising that the physical process by which this deformation would occur is not defined.

But we must realise that the same is true for SR. I also looked for a physical cause for the slowing down of travelling clocks. And it was silly. After I returned to physics, it took me 10 years to understand why. It is simply a logical consequence of a 4-dimensional universe with a speed limit. These two criteria alone imply the shifting of clocks, without any need to invoke other physical causes.
With GR, we can also deal with the half-turn made by a clock. This implies an acceleration/deceleration phase whose effects must be compatible with the round trip handled without acceleration by SR. And of course this is the case: the clock shift effect linked to the acceleration of the U-turn is the same whether calculated in RR or GR, with similar equations.  In other words, acceleration modelled in 4D space implies this shift by pure logic and not by physical effect. Since acceleration is acceleration and no effect has ever been found to distinguish between gravitational acceleration and the acceleration experienced by the clock in its half-turn, the consequence of this principle of equivalence is that, similarly, gravitational acceleration is indeed a geometric property, hence the notion of 'spacetime fabric'. All this is pure logic implied by a 4D universe with a speed limit.

Now we know that GR is incompatible with QM, and also that it does not allow us to model everything in distant space, so obviously it will have to be questioned, and QM probably too.
However, a model should not be criticised on the points where it correctly models what we observe, as long as we have no better alternative. The adequacy of the model to the observations is all that is required, and challenging it when its limitations are already known is pointless, especially when no better, scientific and therefore falsifiable alternative is proposed.
We can imagine other dimensions, unlimited speed, gravity that is not identifiable with acceleration, a physical cause for the effect of masses on time or quantum vacuum or anything else, blah, blah, blah, as long as we have not produced anything better than GR in operational terms, i.e. in terms of predicting effects qualitatively and quantitatively, it remains at the level of a theory of transubstantiation.