OverUnity Research

I created a thread on OU.com about this here: https://overunity.com/18852/a-solid-state-homopolar-motor/msg557375/#new

But there was very little interaction besides from Smudge. I'm hoping this place will lead to more interesting discussions. So basically after years of playing with homopolar motors and generators I came to the conclusions that the asymmetric nature of a capacitor and it's "displacement" current could potentially be used to induce an EMF without any back EMF on the source. I have shared numerous designs on the above forum post but let me share a very simplified design here.

Attached you see a capacitor where a coil has been wound around one plate. Now when you apply an AC current to the capacitor according to classical EM theory there should be no EMF generated in the capacitor. I have big HUNCH that an EMF can also only be detected IF there is a DC bias going in the coil, in essence emulating a magnet in a homopolar motor. In this case the "motor" part becomes the coil which is not mechanically torqued but electrically resulting in an induced current.

There are some caveats but will digress to not overload the initial post.

Hi Broli, welcome.

Why does the coil need to be around one of the plates as opposed to being in the middle?

What have your experiments shown with your setup?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.05.08, 12:24:43
Hi Broli, welcome.

Why does the coil need to be around one of the plates as opposed to being in the middle?

What have your experiments shown with your setup?

That's an excellent question. The asymmetry is important. The key here is to MAXIMIZE movement of charge towards the edges of the coil and they may NOT cross the edge of the coil, anything that crosses it will have the opposite effect negating the proposed induction. Also any charge that moves away from the edge of the the coils will have a negating effect as well. This is why the the following points are important:

• Coil needs to be around the edge of one plate only or else all forces negate
• A DC bias in the coil should be needed to have a magnetic field in place to affect the moving charges in the capacitor
• As soon as the capacitor reaches maximum charge and the charges want to oscillate back, ALL energy in the coil must be dumped to avoid losing this gained energy as moving charge back will have the opposite effect.

These points are shown in the attached drawing. You see the coil in orange and a capacitor plate which has 4 spokes (to minimize the rotating current caused by the blue force). As charge moves radially outward towards the coil they are affected due to the Lorentz force however the hypothesis here is that THEY also affect the coil in the same but opposite torqueing way. And when they start to move away from the coil edge as drawn on the right side they will oppose the circulating DC bias current thus no total gain was made. Hence why all the energy in the coil needs to be dumped before the charge starts moving back.

The implications of this could be profound if confirmed as this leads to so many other designs and explains a lot of "claimed" overunity devices.

Thanks Broli :)

Posting a slightly modified version.  As long as it's isolated+not grounded, an HV charge might be applied to the wire loops themselves instead of relying on separate capacitor plates.

In this setup, the wire loops conceivably act as both as inductor and as capacitor.
:D

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.08, 13:46:08
That's an excellent question. The asymmetry is important. The key here is to MAXIMIZE movement of charge towards the edges of the coil and they may NOT cross the edge of the coil, anything that crosses it will have the opposite effect negating the proposed induction. Also any charge that moves away from the edge of the the coils will have a negating effect as well. This is why the the following points are important:

• Coil needs to be around the edge of one plate only or else all forces negate
• A DC bias in the coil should be needed to have a magnetic field in place to affect the moving charges in the capacitor
• As soon as the capacitor reaches maximum charge and the charges want to oscillate back, ALL energy in the coil must be dumped to avoid losing this gained energy as moving charge back will have the opposite effect.

These points are shown in the attached drawing. You see the coil in orange and a capacitor plate which has 4 spokes (to minimize the rotating current caused by the blue force). As charge moves radially outward towards the coil they are affected due to the Lorentz force however the hypothesis here is that THEY also affect the coil in the same but opposite torqueing way. And when they start to move away from the coil edge as drawn on the right side they will oppose the circulating DC bias current thus no total gain was made. Hence why all the energy in the coil needs to be dumped before the charge starts moving back.

The implications of this could be profound if confirmed as this leads to so many other designs and explains a lot of "claimed" overunity devices.

Hi broli
I think it would be helpful if you labelled your arrows to identify whether they depict current (or electron flow) or force.  If I read you correctly you have a classical homopolar motor except the radial current does not go through brushes at the rim of the disc but charges the disc capacitance.  To get rotation in a given direction the coil current needs to be reversed during capacitance discharge.   So feeding the capacitance and the coils with the correctly phased RF you will have a motor.  I can't see where overunity comes into this.
Smudge

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2021.05.08, 15:27:51
Thanks Broli :)

Posting a slightly modified version.  As long as it's isolated+not grounded, an HV charge might be applied to the wire loops themselves instead of relying on separate capacitor plates.

In this setup, the wire loops conceivably act as both as inductor and as capacitor.
:D

Hey Reiyuki, this is certainly possible as well, obviously a higher capacitance would be better to preferably stay below the RF domain to keep radiation loses low and a whole slew of other effects. But the open nature of the capacitor prevents high capacitances unless someone has a creative idea to fix that. Also remember the only part that would push energy into the system is when charge is moving towards the coil, when it moves back again this energy will be negated and hence before it moves back all this energy must be captured.

Quote from: Smudge on 2021.05.08, 16:45:13
Hi broli
I think it would be helpful if you labelled your arrows to identify whether they depict current (or electron flow) or force.  If I read you correctly you have a classical homopolar motor except the radial current does not go through brushes at the rim of the disc but charges the disc capacitance.  To get rotation in a given direction the coil current needs to be reversed during capacitance discharge.   So feeding the capacitance and the coils with the correctly phased RF you will have a motor.  I can't see where overunity comes into this.
Smudge

Hey Smudge, I added the symbols to the attached drawing.

What you also just described is not what I'm trying to put forth here BUT it IS how I came to the current design. YES you could also make an actual mechanical motor out of this by using a ferrite core for example but I found that task much more daunting so I went on exploring a solid state design. But this mechanical motor could also be OU. But how can it be OU you might ask? Well I would like to ask you, where will the back EMF be located in such setup? The spokes of the capacitor will experience that blue force I illustrated in the diagram caused by the Lorentz force, But these spokes are fixed and and not moveable. If they don't move they also don't have a chance to experience a back EMF (according to the Corbino effect). So in essence you can torque the ferrite core to any speed and no back EMF is felt on the stationary capacitor. Does that make sense?

Now if we move beyond this mechanical model which has merits on its own we come to the current design. And I know you are skeptic about this but this is my preposition. I for some reason (based on research obviously) believe that this previously torqueing force in a current loop is NOT mechanical as it was in a ferromagnetic material like a PM or the ferrite core described above. In a loop of wire it will manifest as an EMF BECAUSE the current has no return path, and this is what would be immensely interesting if it were the case.

I really feel like making a video to explain this better as text only is not the best medium to convey an idea.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.08, 21:15:35
...In a loop of wire it will manifest as an EMF BECAUSE the current has no return path, and this is what would be immensely interesting if it were the case.

Here too there is a return path. From what I understand, the charge of the capacitor creates a radial current as in a disk of a real homopolar motor.
But in each plate of the capacitor, the currents move in opposite directions. The radial currents in the two plates are in opposite directions, it is a current loop, so their effects on the coil cancel each other out.
And if you imagine that by moving the plates away from each other, the coil will only recover the effect of the closest one, it is a mistake, the magnetic field is conservative.

Hi Broli,

I have to disagree with your perception of the torque on the coil as depicted by your force arrows there.  In my opinion the radial current in the spokes will create B field on the coil in the z direction as shown in my amended image below.  The B field forms circles around the radial vector so at the coil the field is in the z direction.  That will then create radial force on the wire, not a circumferential force.  I only show one quadrant as I am too lazy to show the other three.  So the only forces on the coil are trying to distort it.  I think it is a fact that in the classical homopolar motor the magnet or the coil do not endure a torque, it is only in the disc that the torque is manifest.

Smudge   

Here is an experiment, much simpler but related, see attached diagram.

On the left, we have two lines with opposite currents.  They are therefore subjected to two opposite magnetic forces, and the net force on the whole loop is zero.
On the right, the loop is open thanks to a capacitor, so the force can no longer be exerted on the open part between the plates, so we should have a net force on the whole, which means that if we were to suspend the circuit from a wire, we would have an angle with respect to the vertical. But this is not the case. The net force remains zero.

There is no such thing as an open circuit in which a current flows. This is an illusion that the diagram gives. The current is always looped because the charges influence each other at a distance. So opening the circuit with the capacitor does not change the force on the part with the capacitor (there is no force on the open area, of course, but there will be more on the plates where the charges are concentrated).
The movement of a single charge in the universe influences all the other charges in the rest of the universe towards a new equilibrium, which is equivalent to a loop, a return path.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.09, 10:28:28
Here is an experiment, much simpler but related, see attached diagram.

On the left, we have two lines with opposite currents.  They are therefore subjected to two opposite magnetic forces, and the net force on the whole loop is zero.
On the right, the loop is open thanks to a capacitor, so the force can no longer be exerted on the open part between the plates, so we should have a net force on the whole, which means that if we were to suspend the circuit from a wire, we would have an angle with respect to the vertical. But this is not the case. The net force remains zero.

There is no such thing as an open circuit in which a current flows. This is an illusion that the diagram gives. The current is always looped because the charges influence each other at a distance. So opening the circuit with the capacitor does not change the force on the part with the capacitor (there is no force on the open area, of course, but there will be more on the plates where the charges are concentrated).
The movement of a single charge in the universe influences all the other charges in the rest of the universe towards a new equilibrium, which is equivalent to a loop, a return path.

Hey F6FLT, yes I agree with this as well. I'm not proposing a violation of Newton's third law either. And the fact that the open circuit shows shows 0 force too makes sense. On OU.com I posted a force break down where I also showed the interaction of single charges in accordance to Newton's third law (derived from the forgotten Weber's electrodynamics). I attached an improved diagram of this below labeled fig 4. Here you see that all forces act according to newton's third law. So even in the case of an open current loop it wouldn't matter as all these forces would cancel out.

What I'm proposing is shown in fig 5 below. IF there is such EMF then it can be used to aid the current flow in one direction without any impeding force on the moving charged particles as their forces would be 90 degrees to their motion.

Hi Broli

There is no possibility of violating the well-established laws of physics (electromagnetism, Newton, relativity or others), simply by invoking them in experimental setups, whatever the setup. If you describe a setup with perfectly conventional properties (current, electrons, magnetic field etc.), you cannot claim that there could be anomalies. It is not a question of physics but of pure logic, because the notions of fields, charge, current that you used at the beginning are perfectly defined, mathematically, as well as the framework of their interactions. It is a question of the mathematical formalism associated with these concepts, which implies the conservation of energy, charge, momentum

Either you invoke exotic mechanisms (ZPE, Maxwell demon, neutrinos or whatever), and then you can apply the concepts of physics like field, charge... and the laws of physics, while having anomalous results, which are no longer really anomalous because they are due to the hypothesis of a new energy source, or you show us a set-up that you have realized according to your idea, with measurements proving anomalies, and then after verification of the facts and their interpretation, we can look for either the mysterious source of the anomalies, or the laws of physics that should be modified.

In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself, it would be like saying that you can perfectly assemble the pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle in a special way that will give a coherent but different picture from the one on the box.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.08, 21:15:35

Hey Reiyuki, this is certainly possible as well, obviously a higher capacitance would be better to preferably stay below the RF domain to keep radiation loses low and a whole slew of other effects. But the open nature of the capacitor prevents high capacitances unless someone has a creative idea to fix that. Also remember the only part that would push energy into the system is when charge is moving towards the coil, when it moves back again this energy will be negated and hence before it moves back all this energy must be captured.

Pancake version might work better then?    At any rate the capacitance of your circuit is likely to be quite small anyway if there is any appreciable distance between the plates.
A Tesla Bifilar series configuration would also add more capacitance between the turns themselves, but I'm not sure if this is to be desired or not

Quote from: F6FLTEither you invoke exotic mechanisms (ZPE, Maxwell demon, neutrinos or whatever), and then you can apply the concepts of physics like field, charge... and the laws of physics, while having anomalous results, which are no longer really anomalous because they are due to the hypothesis of a new energy source, or you show us a set-up that you have realized according to your idea, with measurements proving anomalies, and then after verification of the facts and their interpretation, we can look for either the mysterious source of the anomalies, or the laws of physics that should be modified.

Certain aspects like faster-than-light propagation velocity have not been incorporated into either Heaviside/Maxwell's formulas or with modern Quantum physics.
[ url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3355-3 ]Measuring propagation speed of Coulomb fields[ /url ].  Coulomb fields and displacement currents have not been very well explored since Maxwell/Heaviside's day, because academia is just discovering these things now.
There may very well be additional anomalies and/or loopholes that creative minds have simply not connected. :P


If I am interpreting Broli's hypothesis correct, he is positing that a dielectric displacement current necessarily creates a magnetic induction that is presently being wasted between the plates of a capacitor.  The experiment is clearly laid-out along with a rough guideline of a theory to go with it, so I don't see where the problem is.
I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from performing actual experiments, as it is the only way we will ever make real progress. ;)

Perhaps relative to this discussion is the attached paper of my work years ago with magneto electric induction using capacitively coupled flat coils.  This was initially inspired by the work of Arie DeGues.  If the high frequency sine wave could be synthesized such that the switching devices could return the negative energy to the supply, this concept would allow an efficient OU device to be realized.

Although I made some feeble attempts to produce this effect at lower frequencies I didn't have much success but may be worth further investigation. 

Regards,
Pm 

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.09, 13:23:37
Hi Broli

There is no possibility of violating the well-established laws of physics (electromagnetism, Newton, relativity or others), simply by invoking them in experimental setups, whatever the setup. If you describe a setup with perfectly conventional properties (current, electrons, magnetic field etc.), you cannot claim that there could be anomalies. It is not a question of physics but of pure logic, because the notions of fields, charge, current that you used at the beginning are perfectly defined, mathematically, as well as the framework of their interactions. It is a question of the mathematical formalism associated with these concepts, which implies the conservation of energy, charge, momentum

Either you invoke exotic mechanisms (ZPE, Maxwell demon, neutrinos or whatever), and then you can apply the concepts of physics like field, charge... and the laws of physics, while having anomalous results, which are no longer really anomalous because they are due to the hypothesis of a new energy source, or you show us a set-up that you have realized according to your idea, with measurements proving anomalies, and then after verification of the facts and their interpretation, we can look for either the mysterious source of the anomalies, or the laws of physics that should be modified.

In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself, it would be like saying that you can perfectly assemble the pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle in a special way that will give a coherent but different picture from the one on the box.

Hey F6FLT I really appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with this statement. The century long ongoing debate on this topic alone is a testament to how divided scientists and researchers are on this very topic. And it's exactly because the well known maxwell equations don't handle these fringe cases that some have proposed other or forgotten models such as Weber's electrodynamics. In almost all cases these two theories give the same result however in the case of an open circuit, they give conflicting results. This fringe case effect is inherently small due to the small capacitances and currents involved.

I shared the attached paper on OU.com as well where a very similar concept is explored with an experiment confirming the proposed idea. Here's a good quote from the paper:

QuoteThis is also the reason why it is so difficult to distinguish between Maxwell and Weber electrodynamics simply by measuring the forces around direct currents. Only where the wire ends the fields differ. It is obvious that exactly this must be exploited in order to decide experimentally between the two theories

I mean if we are not exploring these fringe cases for interesting results what are we doing here in the first place?

Quote from: partzman on 2021.05.09, 16:20:35
Perhaps relative to this discussion is the attached paper of my work years ago with magneto electric induction using capacitively coupled flat coils.  This was initially inspired by the work of Arie DeGues.  If the high frequency sine wave could be synthesized such that the switching devices could return the negative energy to the supply, this concept would allow an efficient OU device to be realized.

Although I made some feeble attempts to produce this effect at lower frequencies I didn't have much success but may be worth further investigation. 

Regards,
Pm

Hey partzman thanks for sharing your work. In the OU community I've seen many concepts which seem to be using very similar designs to the ones in this thread but they focus mainly on the circuits and "special" components. Here I'm trying to offer a very simple explanation from first principal logic and personal research experience. Sadly high voltage and high frequency experiments are beyond my current capabilities.

Quote from: Smudge on 2021.05.09, 10:16:33
Hi Broli,

I have to disagree with your perception of the torque on the coil as depicted by your force arrows there.  In my opinion the radial current in the spokes will create B field on the coil in the z direction as shown in my amended image below.  The B field forms circles around the radial vector so at the coil the field is in the z direction.  That will then create radial force on the wire, not a circumferential force.  I only show one quadrant as I am too lazy to show the other three.  So the only forces on the coil are trying to distort it.  I think it is a fact that in the classical homopolar motor the magnet or the coil do not endure a torque, it is only in the disc that the torque is manifest.

Smudge

Hey Smudge this is exactly the claim that is being put forward here. I AM claiming that for an open current loop (ie a capacitor) you cannot use the classical Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force law to calculate the magnetic field and forces involved as these only hold for interactions of closed loop currents on moving charged particles. You need a model that considers charge on charge interactions, like Weber's equation for instance which also respects Newtons third law in its strong form (ie forces are collinear with their radial vector) .If you do you'll discover that these forces are not perpendicular to the direction of motion as you have corrected in the diagram.

EDIT: I extracted the relevant simulation figure 3 from the paper I posted earlier and flipped it 90 degrees as it may not be very clear as to what it is depicting. Basically the author performed a simulation to show a force field due to a current wire that is open ended onto moving charge, which are moving from right to left in the below attached diagram. So every arrow on the grid represents the force on a charged particle that is moving from right to left.

The source is the current piece illustrated in green which is open ended and would be the capacitor in my case. Then the field assumes everywhere else that there is a charged particle moving from right to left. Since we are only interested in a single line I have picked a path at the top which is the orange current path (this is the coil or magnet in my design). I have exaggerated the simulated forces in purple, and as you can see in the Weber case which considers charge on charge interactions these forces are not 90 degrees perpendicular to the flow of the current.

I would also like to say that the fact the inherit small capacitance of this design AND that ONLY a small part of the force is in the direction of motion makes any effect inherently small and thus easily dismissible.

broli

QuoteHey F6FLT I really appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with this statement. The century long ongoing debate on this topic alone is a testament to how divided scientists and researchers are on this very topic. And it's exactly because the well known maxwell equations don't handle these fringe cases that some have proposed other or forgotten models such as Weber's electrodynamics. In almost all cases these two theories give the same result however in the case of an open circuit, they give conflicting results. This fringe case effect is inherently small due to the small capacitances and currents involved.

The main problem I have found is that most people like to quote Maxwell's work but have never actually read it. If they had actually bothered to read it they would know he stated that he purposely excluded vast amounts of other phenomena not directly related for clarity. I have written many science papers and do exactly the same thing as Maxwell did because the format is meant to deal with only one topic limited in scope. So this notion that just because Maxwell didn't include Weber and others work means that it doesn't apply is nonsensical. What most have done is take what Maxwell actually said and did completely out of context.

As well I thought Maxwell's work was a joke, they would reduce all the supposed phenomena in the universe to a hand full of overly vague and generalized equations?. There is also the fact that none of these people had a clue what a "field" is which persists even today. Oh they love to throw terminology and equations around but they have literally no idea what "as it exists in reality" they are trying to describe.

Even more bizarre is that there is no such thing as a "field" in itself because it is simply the measure of a condition or form of notation. Should we start thinking "inches" are a tangible substance which has magical properties enabling it to flow and effect other things?. Most still make this same mistake with lines of force thinking they actually exist in reality when in fact they are just another form of notation. It's become such a quagmire of misinterpretations and false beliefs which explains why they have made almost no real progress in the last 50 years with respect to energy technology.

The fact remains that we were well on our way to doing some really incredible things until Maxwell, Einstein and the gang showed up. The newspapers prior to that time were littered with miraculous free energy and anti-gravity devices then almost all of it came to a screeching halt. Why do you suppose that is?... Tesla said these people were amateurs chasing fairy dust and I would tend to agree. The proof is in the lack of progress in my opinion...

If you want to make some real progress consider the field as nothing more than a phase shift of something already present in free space. The field is not something but a condition of something changing within the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think there is a supposed electric field around particles like the Proton-Electron?, where did it come from?, why is it perpetual?. In fact these particles are nothing more than receiver/re-transmitters producing a phase shift and a particle cannot just magically produce a field of force around itself for no apparent reason. Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.05.09, 20:09:38
broli
The main problem I have found is that most people like to quote Maxwell's work but have never actually read it. If they had actually bothered to read it they would know he stated that he purposely excluded vast amounts of other phenomena not directly related for clarity. I have written many science papers and do exactly the same thing as Maxwell did because the format is meant to deal with only one topic limited in scope. So this notion that just because Maxwell didn't include Weber and others work means that it doesn't apply is nonsensical. What most have done is take what Maxwell actually said and did completely out of context.

As well I thought Maxwell's work was a joke, they would reduce all the supposed phenomena in the universe to a hand full of overly vague and generalized equations?. There is also the fact that none of these people had a clue what a "field" is which persists even today. Oh they love to throw terminology and equations around but they have literally no idea what "as it exists in reality" they are trying to describe.

Even more bizarre is that there is no such thing as a "field" in itself because it is simply the measure of a condition or form of notation. Should we start thinking "inches" are a tangible substance which has magical properties enabling it to flow and effect other things?. Most still make this same mistake with lines of force thinking they actually exist in reality when in fact they are just another form of notation. It's become such a quagmire of misinterpretations and false beliefs which explains why they have made almost no real progress in the last 50 years with respect to energy technology.

The fact remains that we were well on our way to doing some really incredible things until Maxwell, Einstein and the gang showed up. The newspapers prior to that time were littered with miraculous free energy and anti-gravity devices then almost all of it came to a screeching halt. Why do you suppose that is?... Tesla said these people were amateurs chasing fairy dust and I would tend to agree. The proof is in the lack of progress in my opinion...

If you want to make some real progress consider the field as nothing more than a phase shift of something already present in free space. The field is not something but a condition of something changing within the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think there is a supposed electric field around particles like the Proton-Electron?, where did it come from?, why is it perpetual?. In fact these particles are nothing more than receiver/re-transmitters producing a phase shift and a particle cannot just magically produce a field of force around itself for no apparent reason. Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

Hey AC, I don't want to start an all out debate on how broken the current scientific community is and how things are stuck in a loop for almost a century but you are right. I preferably would like to get some experimental confirmation of the proposed effect and explore ways on potentially scaling it up.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.05.09, 20:09:38
broli
If you want to make some real progress consider the field as nothing more than a phase shift of something already present in free space. The field is not something but a condition of something changing within the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think there is a supposed electric field around particles like the Proton-Electron?, where did it come from?, why is it perpetual?. In fact these particles are nothing more than receiver/re-transmitters producing a phase shift and a particle cannot just magically produce a field of force around itself for no apparent reason. Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

Not a "phase shift" but a frequency of vibration function. As one cannot use meters and scopes to measure what we percieve as empty space, we must identify the method of the physics that operates through space to devliever power to the atoms, that is constantly present everywhere.

You cannot use an electrical meter to measure the torsion force on a shaft comming out of a motor, but there is torquing stress on the shaft that changes every time a piston fires. There is an underlying vibration present on the shaft causing motion. As this frequency rises the power on the shaft rises with it.

Until we can begin to quantify the energy in empty space, we are lost to couple to it and extract energy as the atom does.
Fortunately we do now have access to the frequencies the atom uses at the Isotope level where the strong force is generated.

We also now have access to the frequency stack in empty space that we can tap into.

When we tap into space and create an Isotope conical field, it cannot be measured using an EM meter, we have to set up two of them at 90 degees in a state of motion as the atom does in order to move an EM scope or meter.

The raw force we extract from space is a tensor, exactly like the vibration on the motor shaft, it vibrates.

This is why for so long it has illuded everyone, most believe EM comes first and so cannot reach beneath it to start working directly with vibration tensors.

Once you realize there is an energy souce that is more pirmal then EM, and lies beneath it, then you can begin to ask the correct questions to discover how to begin manipulating it.

Wilbert Smith "The New Science"

Dave L

DaveL

QuoteNot a "phase shift" but a frequency of vibration function. As one cannot use meters and scopes to measure what we percieve as empty space, we must identify the method of the physics that operates through space to devliever power to the atoms, that is constantly present everywhere.

I would agree, phase shift was my being lazy and applying a term more people can relate to. The incoming universal oscillations are modified by matter and then radiated outward at a different frequency giving the appearance that something is present in the surrounding space... a field. However as we can see the field is not a product of the source but the source manipulating the surrounding space. This is why the field cannot not rotate with the source because it is not only a product of the source but also the space it occupies... really neat stuff to consider.

QuoteThis is why for so long it has illuded everyone, most believe EM comes first and so cannot reach beneath it to start working directly with vibration tensors.
Once you realize there is an energy souce that is more pirmal then EM, and lies beneath it, then you can begin to ask the correct questions to discover how to begin manipulating it.

Agreed, and while I love these concepts describing nature and science it can get a little mind numbing at times. It's crazy isn't it?, most of what we think we know through our limited senses and somewhat faulty measurements is an illusion. Broli touched on the problem as did many other great minds in that our senses can only take us so far and then reason and logic must prevail. This is why we see so many diverse view points trying to describe the same effects. In truth the criticism here made me question everything I thought I knew and I am a better man for it. We must question everything even though part of us wants to dismiss it as known even though it is not... if there is no room for doubt there is no room to learn and make progress.

Broli

QuoteHey AC, I don't want to start an all out debate on how broken the current scientific community is and how things are stuck in a loop for almost a century but you are right. I preferably would like to get some experimental confirmation of the proposed effect and explore ways on potentially scaling it up.

I agree and my mind tends to go off on tangents which allows me to teach and learn in the same instance, ergo it was as much for others as myself. Did you know all the greatest minds talked to themselves as a way to verify there conclusions as true or false because they can smell bs... even there own, lol. In truth the scientific community are better people than I perceive myself to be. They are more determined, more focused on results and more educated which comes full circle back to intent.

Which respect to your topic, consider what you propose...The interesting case of magnetic induction due to a Capacitor.

From my perspective this notion is ambiguous on multiple levels. First there is no such thing as a magnetic field as most imagine it, few know or can describe what in fact it is. They say it is a field not knowing what a field is, of force not knowing how or why a force could manifest itself on the most fundamental level, supposedly originating from a source not understanding that said source is a fog of particles induced by external devices to near the speed of light in a hard vacuum we liberally call... matter. If fact there is basically no matter in it as what we call it is in fact 1% material moving, oscillating near the speed of light induced to move by external devices, ergo a universal oscillation invoked on every level in every space.

The sheer magnitude of the failure to understand what is occurring on even the most basic level is very hard for me to comprehend now. I get it, I was once there but now I am now here, and my here is very much far removed from where I was and most seem to be. I have a suspicion DaveL get's it, everything is not quite as it seems to most, in fact it is so far removed from normalcy that it's amazing anyone get it. Thankfully we stand on the shoulders of great men who paved the way for us.

With that outburst I digress...

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.05.09, 20:09:38
broli

Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

A magnetic field can flip at Ghz frequencies, the Electron has almost no mass, this is revealed in the study of ESR. The NMR field at the proton layer flips at Mhz frequencies and it is where the mass is located.

The velocity of an electron in an orbit on an iron atom is very close to light speed, and this has almost no mass.
It is reasonable that if we spin a magnet at 1000 rpm, its mass rotation will never catch up with those velocities of spin.

In vibration work, we discovered we can couple to something if a "ratio" is present and we know that ratio.
We also discovered that we can change that ratio by Octaves and it will still couple at lower octave.

The Electron/Proton ratio can be used to vibrate up something producing tensors that vibrate.
Remember that Electron spin opposes Proton spin in the same magnetic field [tesla] and this is the low energy state where the magnetic fields of the two are in opposition. If we flip the proton over so the two magnetic field are now in attraction then the spin reverses on one and we get spin coupling, this is the high energy state. This is how NMR works, as we flip from the hight energy state back to the low energy state a photon is given off with a frequency that will identify the particular atom.

Here an experiment that may raise many questions, and it demonstrates a phenomena of tensor vibration fields which has never been recorded that I am aware of.
http://www.resonantfractals.org/EP_Ratio/EP_Ratio.html (http://www.resonantfractals.org/EP_Ratio/EP_Ratio.html)

DaveL

Einsteins mistake,

For the most part time relativity has been verified as correct, as he predicted, at atomic levels, and in use of atomic clocks on GPS sattelites.
Eintein got this right.

However if we read Dewy Larsons work in the lab, he discovered a missing negative sign in Einsteins works.
It was claimed as we approach light velocity with mass aboard, our mass will increase to infinity, and it was claimed there is not enough energy in the universe to accomplish this.

In the lab Larson realized that as mass approaches light velocity it effectively reduces in weight or looses mass.
This hands on discovery goes unnoticed in physics, but it was proven with experiment.
It opens the door to comprehension of how saucer craft can turn at 90 degrees at high rates of velocity.

While working with cars and Joe Cells I began to notice with specific tunning of the vibration field as we cornered, we felt much less being pulled to the outer side of the turn. This was a reduction of inertial response, and all we really did was create a large vibration field bubble on the car.

Consciously this was felt as an acceleration of mind, like being on speed, but with no after effects. So as we increased the mass vibrations on all our atoms, we got two notable effects, mental clarity, and reduction of inertia.

This JC work becomes addictive, and probably good that we stopped, but after this I started to experiment with the vibration of the engine of the car and found a method to reduce inertia on the acceleration of the motor and the turning of the car.
I call it the 89/50 field, and it can be amplifed by adding more layers to it, to the point where you stop feeling the earth and start feeling the center of the engines spin as your relative gravitational center. With too many layers it became dangerous, as the car did not want to stay on the road, it did not want to turn in a curve at all, and since you could not feel the motion with respect to the earth, it was considered dangerous to me at the time.
As long as you were moving straight, there was almost no inertia relative to the earth.

The 8950 document is in the Joe Cell section.
http://www.resonantfractals.org/Joe_Cell/Joe_Cell_Menu.html (http://www.resonantfractals.org/Joe_Cell/Joe_Cell_Menu.html)

I had a fellow put this field on a motor cycle successfully, and he came back somtime later to tell me of the accident he had, the bike would take off like crazy.

This is the sort of effects Joe was getting at the race track, to the point where no one would volunteer to be the driver.

Quantification of these vibration fields, or tensor fields, has allowed me to experience things I would never thought possible, from my formal education.

DaveL

Quote from: Smudge on 2021.05.09, 10:16:33
Hi Broli,

I have to disagree with your perception of the torque on the coil as depicted by your force arrows there.  In my opinion the radial current in the spokes will create B field on the coil in the z direction as shown in my amended image below.  The B field forms circles around the radial vector so at the coil the field is in the z direction.  That will then create radial force on the wire, not a circumferential force.  I only show one quadrant as I am too lazy to show the other three.  So the only forces on the coil are trying to distort it.  I think it is a fact that in the classical homopolar motor the magnet or the coil do not endure a torque, it is only in the disc that the torque is manifest.

Smudge

Smudge I wanted to expand even further on this. Again if you look at the referenced paper "Experimental confirmation of Weber electrodynamics against Maxwell electrodynamics" you can clearly see the differences in forces when you are dealing with an open current loop. For the Maxwell equations you don't even need to do the math to see that both action and reaction forces are in the same direction which would already be a violation of the action-reaction laws.

However Weber does lead to the correct force direction but this force also has to be a torqueing force or EMF inducing force. Again this has been experimentally proven by the author. I'm going one step further by opening up the capacitor by pushing out one side only. Which in theory should lead to an EMF or a net torque (if you would use a ferromagnetic material that oscillated with the capacitor current). And the diagram below also shows WHY it's only when the current moves towards the coil there is an EMF in the direction of current and why the total current must be cut off when the current switches direction. Which leads us all the way back to my first post.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.09, 17:57:19
Hey F6FLT I really appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with this statement. The century long ongoing debate on this topic alone is a testament to how divided scientists and researchers are on this very topic. And it's exactly because the well known maxwell equations don't handle these fringe cases that some have proposed other or forgotten models such as Weber's electrodynamics...

Hi Broli,

I like your enthusiasm but I'm going to play the wet blanket. Maxwell or Weber, these are points of detail, because both methods involve the conservation of energy. You can't expect any more anomalies from one than from the other.
From a physical point of view, I see their methods more as incomplete engineering tools, than as physical theories. They hide more fundamental phenomena, which relativity reveals.

Electrical phenomena have only one origin: the coulombic field of the charge. The magnetic field is only the electric field of a moving charge, which is strengthened transversely and reduced longitudinally because of its speed (one only has to apply the Lorentz transforms to realize this). The non-isotropy of the coulombic field of a moving charge makes the magnetic field.

Once we know this, things become much simpler in terms of understanding the phenomena (not in terms of calculation), and they evacuate any idea that we could obtain effects incompatible with the conservation of energy or momentum. To do this, one must either leave the known theories and base oneself on alternative theories, or invoke new energy sources, or have experimental proof of anomalies, which obviously cannot be logically imagined from the classical theories that forbid them. That's why I said "you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself".

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.10, 06:17:21
Smudge I wanted to expand even further on this. Again if you look at the referenced paper "Experimental confirmation of Weber electrodynamics against Maxwell electrodynamics" you can clearly see the differences in forces when you are dealing with an open current loop. For the Maxwell equations you don't even need to do the math to see that both action and reaction forces are in the same direction which would already be a violation of the action-reaction laws.

Well I have no objection to a violation of Newton's action-reaction laws since Newton's laws are wrong (I played with gyroscopes many years ago and even corresponded with Prof Eric Laithwaite.  Built a forced precession machine that should have shown weight reduction and didn't.  Came to the conclusion that inertia is not an internal property of a body.  Certainly a body has some property that determines its inertial mass (like collision cross section against virtual particles) but the actual value of that mass depends also upon the properties of the space in which the body sits (like virtual particle density and momentum) whereby inertial force come from momentum exchange with those space particles, hence is seen as an external force not the stupid "resisting change of motion" nonsense.)   

QuoteHowever Weber does lead to the correct force direction

I don't see that the experiment verifies that at all.  In my opinion those L shaped sheets of copper form a closed current loop (with displacement current across the gap) that is a large electromagnet with square cross section.  That has a square pole face toward the beholder.  The small PM will be drawn into the that electromagnet or force away by classical magnetic force and is not a valid experiment for determining Maxwell v. Weber.  The author seems to have completely disregarded the current flow in the vertical sections of copper sheet and their effect on the magnet.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2021.05.10, 09:03:13
...Certainly a body has some property that determines its inertial mass (like collision cross section against virtual particles)...

Then how do you explain that inertia does not depend on the geometry?
If it's a question of cross section, the inertia of a moving disk should be lower if it moves along its plane than transversely.

Quote from: Smudge on 2021.05.10, 09:03:13
Well I have no objection to a violation of Newton's action-reaction laws since Newton's laws are wrong (I played with gyroscopes many years ago and even corresponded with Prof Eric Laithwaite.  Built a forced precession machine that should have shown weight reduction and didn't.  Came to the conclusion that inertia is not an internal property of a body.  Certainly a body has some property that determines its inertial mass (like collision cross section against virtual particles) but the actual value of that mass depends also upon the properties of the space in which the body sits (like virtual particle density and momentum) whereby inertial force come from momentum exchange with those space particles, hence is seen as an external force not the stupid "resisting change of motion" nonsense.)   

I don't see that the experiment verifies that at all.  In my opinion those L shaped sheets of copper form a closed current loop (with displacement current across the gap) that is a large electromagnet with square cross section.  That has a square pole face toward the beholder.  The small PM will be drawn into the that electromagnet or force away by classical magnetic force and is not a valid experiment for determining Maxwell v. Weber.  The author seems to have completely disregarded the current flow in the vertical sections of copper sheet and their effect on the magnet.

Smudge

That's true considering the whole circuit the magnet either will be pushed in or out of this square circuit. But the force is OPPESITE to what the maxwell equations predict, see attached. I mean if the quantity was different then that could probably be written off as an measurement error but a flipped sign is usually an indication of a fundamental difference.

I don't want to focus too much on Weber's electrodynamics either it is merely a vehicle to indeed show there is a force that is flipped. I come to this by pure intuition and experimentation as well not from a mathematical point of view.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.10, 09:33:50
Then how do you explain that inertia does not depend on the geometry?
If it's a question of cross section, the inertia of a moving disk should be lower if it moves along its plane than transversely.

You are using cross section in the usual macro world.  I deliberately said collision cross section that is a term used in particle physics, and applies to particles not whole lumps of matter.  I was really talking about the inertial mass of fundamental particles that possess what we call mass.  To expand on inertia being an external force, if you draw the Coriolis forces on the mass particles of a precessing gyroscope you have force vectors pointing out into space.  In any other branch of physics (such as an electron moving in a magnetic field) forces depicted thus would be recognized as an external force on the particle.  It is only our (incorrect) teaching that has instilled into our brains the incorrect Newtonian viewpoint.

Smudge

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.10, 09:53:12
That's true considering the whole circuit the magnet either will be pushed in or out of this square circuit. But the force is OPPESITE to what the maxwell equations predict, see attached. I mean if the quantity was different then that could probably be written off as an measurement error but a flipped sign is usually an indication of a fundamental difference.

It may be opposite to what Maxwell's equations predict as derived by Kohn's tortuous math, but it is not opposite to what would be expected based on the force between the poles of the PM and the poles of the square EM.  If as you say Kohn's Maxwell math predicts the opposite of what is expected then I suspect his derivation is faulty.  I can't really accept that the difference between Weber and Maxwell will produce the same magnitude but a reverse effect, it should only predict a small angular offset or a small change of magnitude.  I am not clever enough to delve into Kohn's math to find the error.

Smudge

At the end of the day only experimental proof matters.

I have put forward enough information so far to at least get some experimenteers going.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.10, 14:20:52
At the end of the day only experimental proof matters.

I have put forward enough information so far to at least get some experimenteers going.

Alas I am not able to do experiments.  And with respect I think you would get a more favorable response if you provided more details of the experiment(s) you propose so that people can create them.  The sketches of coils and capacitor plates you have provided to explain the background theory is in my opinion not enough.  I think people would like details of actual coils, sizes number of turns, wire gauge, layout etc. along with a block diagram of equipment and connections and what to look for or measure.  As a matter of interest are you doing any experiments yourself?

Smudge

A theory to be verified experimentally is not a proposed setup, it is an idea of principle. To work with someone who presents a theoretical idea, the idea has to be expressed in a rigorous, preferably mathematical way, and presenting quantified expected effects. Or if I am faced with another experimenter who has an idea but it is poorly formalized, I could also participate because the person know the artefacts and all the subtleties of "real life" in terms of experimentation, and he is really working. Otherwise, usually a childish boast from a Tesla apprentice who flatters his ego by wanting to believe in his genius without getting tired, it's a waste of time.

Quote from: Smudge on 2021.05.10, 14:57:35
Alas I am not able to do experiments.  And with respect I think you would get a more favorable response if you provided more details of the experiment(s) you propose so that people can create them.  The sketches of coils and capacitor plates you have provided to explain the background theory is in my opinion not enough.  I think people would like details of actual coils, sizes number of turns, wire gauge, layout etc. along with a block diagram of equipment and connections and what to look for or measure.  As a matter of interest are you doing any experiments yourself?

Smudge

Currently I'm not and it will take a while before I can do this, there is also a steep learning curve when it comes to high frequency stuff.  But the design shown in the first post is what I will aim for. The reason there is no "magic" setup is that once you understand the reasoning behind it you can literally have dozens of design variations. Anything where a charge moves towards a current carrying wire and stops before it crosses it should be a valid experiment.

Sorry to interrupt

Please remove if inappropriate

broli
If you had the equipment and skill set ( familiarity and comfy at the HV bench)

What would your experiment look like ( and presumably what would you expect to see?)?

IMO a good format as Cyril's suggestion ... block schematic etc etc

Again please remove if ....  ( for any reason

Respectfully
Chet

broli

QuoteAt the end of the day only experimental proof matters.

I have found it to be a duel edged sword...

Experiments mean little unless we have some kind of theory or direction and theory in itself is often misleading. My best results initially leading to understanding free energy came out of nowhere. I was reading some literature and I got this weird transformer idea in my head which was strange because I didn't know what would happen. Conventional theory suggested nothing extraordinary should happen however I understand the theory well enough to understand this arrangement was different. So I built it and all hell broke loose, lol.

This is the duality of perception often found in research (knowledge) and invention(building proof). Having enough knowledge and experience to understand what should happen yet being open minded enough to recognize a contradiction when we see one and following through with experiments. For myself it is cyclic, I research for quite a while to imagine new theories then go on a building spree doing as many experiments as I can. As Tesla implied, a good idea takes time to evolve and we can work though the problems in our head. Once the idea is refined to the point we think it holds merit then we must build it to see what actually happens then make corrections to our theory if needed. 

Regards
AC

Broli, I'm not sure if this was the source for your thinking or if it is just a neat synchronicity,
I thought it worth posting as it's directly related to the diagrams in your earlier posts.  O0

http://www.free-energy-info.com/VladimirUtkin.pdf

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2021.05.11, 14:21:56
Broli, I'm not sure if this was the source for your thinking or if it is just a neat synchronicity,
I thought it worth posting as it's directly related to the diagrams in your earlier posts.  O0

http://www.free-energy-info.com/VladimirUtkin.pdf

Reiyuki, I have not come across this but this touches so many things of what I'm trying to put forward here that it's very intriguing. I want to avoid the the way the author is trying to link EVERYTHING related to OU to a single idea but I do find it very peculiar how all these alleged OU devices share a similar premise, namely open asymmetrical capacitors near a coil  :). My hope is to reduce this idea to it's very basic very simple core and build a step wise experiment to prove step by step that the logic I have actually pans out. When you can show tha basic concept you can expand on that to scale and improve it. I have no OU claim...yet.

Attached is the simplest configuration I can imagine to start experimenting with. If this experiment fails and the predicted waveform is not seen on the scope then the whole premise of this thread is wrong.

Please note that parasitic coupling on the coil to ground should be avoided as much as possible to not skew the results.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.11, 16:18:59
My hope is to reduce this idea to it's very basic very simple core and build a step wise experiment to prove step by step that the logic I have actually pans out.

This is a great method IMHO.  Better to build a simple Wright Bros plane that everyone can understand than an indecipherable 747.  It doesn't even have to be COP>1, as long as it demonstrates a simple effect that cannot be well explained by conventional means.
Please be aware that the process has to have some level of required complexity, otherwise there would be far more people stumbling on success.
'Targeted tinkering' may be the best protocol, especially early-on in order to help build the skill-set and understanding. O0

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2021.05.11, 17:07:52
This is a great method IMHO.  Better to build a simple Wright Bros plane that everyone can understand than an indecipherable 747.  It doesn't even have to be COP>1, as long as it demonstrates a simple effect that cannot be well explained by conventional means.
... O0

    Well said!  I've said the same thing regarding various LENR experiments - many of which are extremely complex, including high-pressure hydrogen, vacuum systems, high-temperatures, etc.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.09, 13:23:37
In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself,

Yes, unless he finds an inconsistency in these laws.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.09, 13:23:37
it would be like saying that you can perfectly assemble the pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle in a special way that will give a coherent but different picture from the one on the box.

The probability of this feat increases with the number of the pieces.

Quote from: DaveL on 2021.05.10, 00:19:42
However if we read Dewy Larsons work in the lab, he discovered a missing negative sign in Einsteins works.

Do you accept all of Larson's conclusions ?

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.11, 16:49:08
Attached is the simplest configuration I can imagine to start experimenting with. If this experiment fails and the predicted waveform is not seen on the scope then the whole premise of this thread is wrong.

Please note that parasitic coupling on the coil to ground should be avoided as much as possible to not skew the results.

The ground will act as the second plate of the capacitor whether I want it or not and that makes this open-ended experiment impractical and dangerous for the scope, ...just like you were implying in your last sentence.
Can you redesign this experiment so BOTH plates of the capacitor are deliberately included in it as two isolated metal coaxial tubes ?

F6FLT

QuoteIn other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself,

There called theories for a reason and physics is constantly proving old theories everyone said could never be broken wrong. It's actually kind of comical because throughout our history every generation claimed there theory must be the correct one and yet none to my knowledge has withstood the test of time. All were absolutely convinced there was no conceivable way they could be wrong... and yet they were.

There is a lesson here...

It all comes down to perspective and I see many thinking on the wrong generally materialistic level. Understand what we see as material is only 1% matter moving about in 99% free space full of EM waves. It's not material, more like a fog of particles which carry an electric field moving so fast they appear to be in every position within there sphere of influence at once. Knowing this it would be easy for me to mislead broli and most here that I could induce the coil in his experiment with a capacitor plate but not as most perceive it.

What is induction?, contrary to popular belief it's still a "spooky action at a distance" because the nonsensical notion that it's simply a field change doesn't hold water. This is true because nobody can explain what a field is thus the line of reason breaks down before it has even started.

Follow the line of reason...
Something effected something else from a distance>>>how did it effect the something through a distance?>>> it was a field>>> what is a field?>>>does not compute !@#$%^.

Ergo the obvious problem within this line of reason is that we cannot replace a lack of understanding with an ambiguous term. If this was the case every time someone asked me a question I cannot answer I could just say "munchkinwalkinunderdabridge" or "wassupgangdarooster" or any other absurd term I could think of to deflect. 

So it comes full circle back to intent and it's easy to explain how I could mislead broli or anyone in this experiment based on my knowledge of the art. I would use his HV source but store a great deal of energy in a capacitor first. Next I would discharge said energy at the highest magnitude in the smallest time frame to dislodge charged particles on the surface of the capacitor plate, a charge matrix, in the most violent manner I could to produce radiant matter(radiant...proceeding from a center outward) to induce his coil. For all intensive purposes he would perceive that in fact induction must have occurred and all his questionable measuring devices would confirm this however... it would not be accurate nor true.

It would seem to me this supposed foundation of physics many would suppose to stand upon is not structurally sound in any sense of the word. In fact it is fluid not unlike everything we know... in a perpetual state of change.

Regards
AC

Quote from: verpies on 2021.05.11, 23:55:33
The ground will act as the second plate of the capacitor whether I want it or not and that makes this open-ended experiment impractical and dangerous for the scope, ...just like you were implying in your last sentence.
Can you redesign this experiment so BOTH plates of the capacitor are deliberately included in it as two isolated metal coaxial tubes ?

Hey Verpies, yes this is fine, as long as there is an appreciable distance between the two plates so the returning charges on the other plate don't affect the coil (and negate the effect) it's fine. Below are 2 other designs where there is a "return" plate.

Broli

To get this straight...

You suppose that the weak magnetic force some how miraculously imparts itself through a dimension you know it cannot for reasons you cannot explain.

It just boggles my mind to think some people think people like myself and others have not been down this road and already proven what is involved. More so that the variation of effects is so wide spread that to presume one effect dominates is nonsensical. As I said, anyone can easily prove a radiant charge effect which leaves your notions with respect to capacitance wanting so why go there...

Begging others advice cannot help your lack of reasoning nor mine and we stand on our own justification or we stand on nothing, it's that simple...

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.05.12, 06:22:34
Broli

To get this straight...

You suppose that the weak magnetic force some how miraculously imparts itself through a dimension you know it cannot for reasons you cannot explain.

It just boggles my mind to think some people think people like myself and others have not been down this road and already proven what is involved. More so that the variation of effects is so wide spread that to presume one effect dominates is nonsensical. As I said, anyone can easily prove a radiant charge effect which leaves your notions with respect to capacitance wanting so why go there...

Begging others advice cannot help your lack of reasoning nor mine and we stand on our own justification or we stand on nothing, it's that simple...

Regards
AC

Hey AC, I always tend to be very careful as to not to engage in discussions where ego takes over the matter of subject. It's a human innate nature to do so but from personal experiences I have found ego is the most useless human property we own, it brings a great deal of conflict, anger and frustration. It becomes useful when you are trying to survive being chased by a tiger in the jungle.

My concepts or ideas I have put forward may look whimsical or childish to some due to their own experiences and knowledge (which is essentially the ego) but if we engage in belittling discussions and rants how are we any different from the "scientific" community which berates anyone who is proposing or suggesting ideas that go against the grain? As far as I can see the only large scale commercial "Free Energy" devices used in the world right now are still solar panels and wind turbines.

Besides I have no shame in begging people for advice or anything else if it means my understanding and knowledge would progress. My own ego is worthless when it comes to that.

But I digress, no matter how controversial it seems be to put a coil near a capacitor I still beg people to see what would happen if they do so  :).

I just wanted to perhaps remark on the technical side of things. Discharging or charging capacitors violently is definitely an OU crowd favorite as Tesla liked to talk about it a lot. However ZPE, Radiant energy, Lord Shiva chakra energy, Spaghetti monster energy aside. At the very basic, how else can you drive large currents into a capacitor that is in the picofarad range? The frequency or high voltage of the proposed experiment is no magical fairy dust to obtain some unique property, the only reason I am suggesting it is to motivate any kind of current to flow. I mean I would be very happy if I could construct a 1 Farad open capacitor that I can drive 100's of Amps through with a 1HZ frequency. Nature does not sadly like open capacitors to have high capacitance.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.05.12, 04:09:21
There called theories for a reason and physics is constantly proving old theories everyone said could never be broken wrong. ...

Imho this is a complete misunderstanding. The old theories are still correct. Why? Because they correctly described the observations up to the precision of the measurements that we are able to make at a given time, and they will always do so.

If new phenomena are not taken into account, if at a certain level of decimals or in a new field the theory deviates from the measurements (which was the case of Newtonian mechanics with the perihelion of Mercury), then it is necessary to restrict its field of application and find a new theory.
This is what happened with Newtonian mechanics. Relativity showed that it was insufficient under certain conditions (high gravity field or extremely high speed), but contrary to what you say, this does not make Newtonian mechanics a "wrong" theory. It is still valid and largely sufficient in most cases.

A theory is made to explain what is observed. When it succeeds to a certain degree of accuracy, it will always succeed to that degree, so it will always remain "right" to that degree of accuracy. If there is nothing new to observe, no new theory is necessary, unless by a stroke of genius, a new theory can simplify the old one or encompass several of them.

In the last 30 years, I have not seen a single phenomenon that an alternative theory would explain and that the academic theories would not explain.
To talk about a theory in free energy is completely meaningless. We can certainly make hypotheses to develop experiments and obtain new phenomena, but as long as we don't observe and measure anything new, a new theory is useless, since we can't verify it against the observations whereas it is made to explain them.

Sorry

Guys can we please keep the focus on the original topic. If you are willing to help with an experiment that's great but please don't derail the thread.

Perhaps to push things along. I'm willing to give a small compensation to anyone who is willing to help perform said experiments. A lot of people already have these materials or circuits laying around and it would probably cost me more to get to that level so it would be a win win situation.

broli
Quote

Perhaps to push things along. I'm willing to give a small compensation to anyone who is willing to help perform said experiments. A lot of people already have these materials or circuits laying around and it would probably cost me more to get to that level so it would be a win win situation.
End quote

broli,
This is the exact reason I asked if you could model an experiment
As well the equipment you would feel is required
There are many who would try to help , however the concept is in "your" head.

We could start build topics at both forums

I have wanted for a very long time to connect resources in the open source community ....those who have ideas
( which can survive some scrutiny ) and a collective agreement between a board of members here ...

"That sounds plausible " or "yeah we should investigate that ""

I have Spoken with Stefan many times about this very topic
(He will definitely help do this at his forum too!)

And yes it leads to a bigger dream of an organization dedicated to this type grass roots research!

If we build it they will come ( they're already here actually, reading the different forums and hoping for some true
Anomaly..

An example of how this works has been running here for years ...completely transparent for scrutiny and input!
Itsu , verpies , smudge and others

The talent pool for the open source community is stupefying
I believe the resources are here ( community)too..

Nothing ventured nothing gained

I would involve all the forums.. or as many as possible

And connect with orgs like harmony international
And others

Please remove if ?

With gratitude
Chet K
Ps
IMO you should run your topic in your bench area so as to
Organize and moderate ..

At least when experiments are proposed / started

Hey Chet I respect your ongoing efforts and all the community building you have been doing for all these years. I know you go way back and really appreciate all you have done and hope karma will always be in your favor.

Now pleasantries aside. I know the community has a mountain of experience, skills and equipment. However sometimes an idea might seem a waste of time for some hence the monetary compensation. I'm in a position now where such transaction makes more sense than gaining all the skills and materials needed to perform an experiment that might gives an ambiguous result due to lack of experience.

As for the idea being in my head. I have went through great lengths and many diagrams to simplify the fundamental idea as much as possible. There is no "magic" part, frequency or theory. All I'm asking is to put a DC biased coil near an open capacitor and see what happens. That's it, if that needs more explanation then I don't know either what more I can do to get a build going besides offering financial compensation.

Quote from: verpies on 2021.05.11, 22:50:59
Yes, unless he finds an inconsistency in these laws.
The probability of this feat increases with the number of the pieces.

If there is an inconsistency in the mathematical formalism of Newtonian mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and so on, it would have been known long ago. Here we are in math, not in physics, these theories are internally consistent.

At most, he can hope that unexpected effects occur, which require a new theory or the addition of new elements of physical reality, but then it is certainly not by inferring them from the theories themselves!
With the pieces of a puzzle you only get the image of the box, the other arrangements do not fit, and if some pieces fit differently, it does not make something coherent but nonsense.
Finding new pieces with their new fitting rules is the goal of the FE game, it is not built on existing theories, even if of course they can help. It is built on ideas of physical concepts, like Einstein wondering what he would "see" if he got closer to the speed of light.

@Broli

If I buld the apparatus depicted below, I expect the current distribution in the axial conductors to resemble the distribution of a dipole antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna) like this:

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4120.0;attach=39905)

Of course, the large plates attached to the ends of the axial conductors will make this current distribution different than in a conventional dipole antenna but it is safe to write that this distribution will somehow depend on the ratio of the wavelength to the distance between the plates.

What signal wavelength do you expect me to apply to this modified dipole antenna ?

Also, what voltage amplitude do you expect me to apply to that modified dipole ?
Normally, when I apply 1kV_RMS sine signal to the center of a regular dipole (without these big plates at the ends), which has a length that is a half of the signal's wavelength, I can expect 13.7kW of far-field RF to be radiated out of such dipole.  With other wavelengths, the radiated power is lower.
This amount of ERP will destroy my scope at a distance, not to mention the interference with it and my health.  So I would prefer an enclosed system or non-radiating system, so I do not have to worry about far-field radiation damage and interference.


P.S.
^{If you'd substituted the mutual capacitive reactance of these plates with a 2nd parallel conductor, which joins the plates off their centers (similarly to where the double arrow is now), then you would transform this apparatus to a topology that is closer to a folded dipole (https://i.stack.imgur.com/p5b8q.png), so I think that the capacitance between these plates makes the modified dipole behave like something between a normal dipole and the folded dipole, e.g. we can expect its feed-point impedance to be somewhere between the impedances of these two types of antennas.}

Hey Verpies, great questions.

This is partially why I also needed help, I'm not an RF expert but I do understand basic antenna theory and current flow in an antenna. The goal here is not to make a high power antenna either but to maximize current flow TOWARDS the coil and never let it cross the coil (this would negate the effect and defeat the purpose of having an open current path to begin with).

So ANY design that can force charge towards the coil in one direction at a time is good, if you could eliminate RF then that's great too I'm not trying to build an antenna. The initial experiments should mainly be focused on seeing any induction effect if you force charge towards a coil. If you can do that with minimal radiated RF then great!

Below I attached an example of several current paths that are ideal and one that passes the coil which would not be desired. So in short to answer your question, ANY topology that can force charge towards the coil but does not let it cross it is golden. If this shows an induction effect then that can be used to motivate later experiments where optimizing for maximum current flow is performed. But I want to keep things as simple as possible initially.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.13, 08:23:12
Perhaps to push things along. I'm willing to give a small compensation to anyone who is willing to help perform said experiments.

Rather than giving me money, you'd better take a 3D RF simulator from me, learn how to use it and simulate the current and voltage distribution of that dipole antenna with these large capacitor plates at its ends.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.13, 08:23:12
A lot of people already have these materials or circuits laying around and it would probably cost me more to get to that level so it would be a win win situation.

The materials are not a problem.  The high-voltage RF amplifier is the problem. For example see this link (https://www.ebay.com/itm/274099977183).

Quote from: verpies on 2021.05.13, 18:24:34
Rather than giving me money, you'd better take a 3D RF simulator from me, learn how to use it and simulate the current and voltage distribution of that dipole antenna with these large capacitor plates at its ends.
The materials are not a problem.  The high-voltage RF amplifier is the problem. For example see this link (https://www.ebay.com/itm/274099977183).

Just curious, what would it take to generate a 100mA current in a dipole?

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.13, 18:49:08
Just curious, what would it take to generate a 100mA current in a dipole?

7.3V_RMS

Quote from: verpies on 2021.05.13, 19:12:41
7.3V_RMS

I assume this won't fry nearby equipment or cook human flesh? 100mA should be fine to show if the concept has any merrit. I was also thinking of bringing the "peak" current closer to the edge of the coil. I'm not sure if the below dipole design will have the shown current distribution along its path but that would ensure that the coil sees maximum current going towards it. As long as you don't cross it it's fine hence the circular shape.

What would it take to build this?

Quote from: verpies on 2021.05.13, 17:21:47
@Broli
...
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4120.0;attach=39905)
...

It is not a dipole but a shortened dipole with capacitive terminations (third option that can be seen here (http://www.antentop.org/w4rnl.001/fdim1.html) on the second picture).
In these conditions the wavelength of the tuning does not correspond to the distance between the plates (neither multiple nor sub-multiple) but to longer wavelengths without harmonic relation with the inter-plate distance. The representation of the waves between the plates does not correspond to any reality.

This project looks a lot like redesigning the amateur radio antenna.

Check out the Isotron antenna, I have one setting out back.
It had a very narrow bandwidth, so was not so useful across the whole Amateur band.

It is my experimental experience that these sort of devices radiate the energy outwards as an RF field.
They act as and are calculated as a load to a transmitter.

The Isotron was driven with an HF transmitter at 100 watts, feedline 52 ohms coax. It is a coil in the center with two capacitor plates setting above and below it. It is not very large but can radiate on 80 meters pretty well. They make them band specific, so you need multiple units to hit all the HF bands.

It is an RF load.

If tunned off frequency, there will be reflected energy back to the transmitter that is out of phase, the transmitter will either burn up or shut down.
We use an antenna analyzer to adjust the center point of the tunned frequency, so we do not burn up the transmitters.

Your end caps with extra loading coil on one side will pull the frequency down and charge up to extremely high voltages at resonance, there will be voltage nodes on both ends of it. People have phtographed a blue glow off the plates of the Isotron at times.

This has only to do with EM resonance.

So your addition of a coil off one capacitor plate will cause that side of the dipole to reflect energy back at a different frequency then the side without the coil, and it will unbalance the feedline back to the transmitter, which if it is a new transmitter will shut down or at least throttle the power back to a very low output. If it is not SWR protected it will fry the transmitter output transistors.

And if you have resonance on a dipole you do not have to feed it with high voltage, the high voltage will appear at the ends of the dipole. At the center you will have high currents.

Isotron Antenna (http://www.resonantfractals.org/Isotron/Isotron.html)
----------------------------------------------------------

That said you can use that form to generate a vibration field around the device in space, by adjusting it's dimensions correctly.
Your spacing of one radius is the right idea. 1/2 Radius will activate a HEX vibration form on the two discs. A T field bubble based on the mass resonance of the two discs, and pull up energy from the mass level turning it into a Tensor type of field. This will appear without any EM applied, how it reacts to EM may be of interest. It will resonate with applied frequency by the formula 1/2 radius length = x mm = x khz, usually done with a scalar coil. This has nothing to do with RF EM resonance which is in general a loss of energy.

Self Resonant Disk Stack (http://www.resonantfractals.org/Levitation/Disk.htm)

DaveL

If you set up the vibration resonance between the two disks, and then want to couple that energy to the power of the RF field you need to know the correct frequency ratio operating between the electron shell and the proton shell.

Here is the data we used to accomplish this connection:

E/P Ratio (http://www.resonantfractals.org/EP_Ratio/EP_Ratio.html)

Electron frequency must be a fractal value of 658.20222 times the Proton mass vibration frequency.
-----------------------------------
658.20222 Ratio  V Electron  / V Proton
/4  =  164.550555  E/P
/4  =   41.137638  E/P  [Floyd Sweet VTA Turns Ratio]
/4  =   10.284409  E/P  [100 watt experiment Turns Ratio]
-----------------------------------
DaveL

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.14, 09:12:28
In these conditions the wavelength of the tuning does not correspond to the distance between the plates (neither multiple nor sub-multiple) but to longer wavelengths without harmonic relation with the inter-plate distance.

Yes, that's why I wrote that the current distribution will somehow depend on the ratio of the wavelength to the distance between the plates - not related to the multiple of the wavelength...

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.14, 09:12:28
The representation of the waves between the plates does not correspond to any reality.

That was a current distribution along a regular dipole, graphically superimposed on the diagram of the dipole with plates at its ends. 
That distribution is characterized by a boundary condition which assumes zero current at the dipole's ends for ALL wavelengths.

Do you know the formula for current distribution in the dipole with plates?  We already know that it is different from the formula for the "unplated" dipole...

Hi Verpies

Even a simple dipole with terminal disks is very complicated to analyze analytically. But we have simulation software for that.
I have quickly simulated in CST the Broli device (1st picture) with a dipole whose each element has 5mm radius, a length of 50cm equal to the radius of the disks, and a thickness of 1mm.

The second view is the impedance at the center of the dipole. We notice that it fluctuates enormously with the frequency, to the point that I had to take a logarithmic scale. If we want to meet Broli's constraints of using a "high voltage" generator, let's say 1KV, at the resonance frequency where the impedance is close to 5 ohm, we will need a power of 200 KW, which requires that the experimenters here be much better equipped than the FM or DAB broadcasters!  C.C
There is only one resonant frequency, around 600 MHz, frequency corresponding to a wavelength = total length of the dipole.
A single resonance frequency is not very surprising, because the disk is as large as the dipole, which means that the electromagnetic field can no longer follow the surface of the elements but will occupy the entire volume between the disk and the dipole, resulting in multiple possible lengths for the tuning, and ultimately a complete blur.

The third view is the current distribution at the resonant frequency.

The last view is just for fun: the radiation diagram. We see that the antenna radiates with a gain of 6 dBi, which is not bad, but it would be unusable in radio because of its pattern. Placed vertically it would radiate towards the birds or the ground.

In the end, the waveforms provided by Broli do not correspond to anything that can physically exist, except the gray one, but at this frequency the use of a high frequency generator is completely unrealistic for the reason explained above.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
Even a simple dipole with terminal disks is very complicated to analyze analytically. But we have simulation software for that.

I figured as much. That is the method I also suggested in this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4120.msg91843#msg91843).

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
I have quickly simulated in CST the Broli device (1st picture)...

Kudos to you for doing that!

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
...with a dipole whose each element has 5mm radius, a length of 50cm equal to the radius of the disks, and a thickness of 1mm.

Is that 1mm, the thickness of the disk ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
The second view is the impedance at the center of the dipole. We notice that it fluctuates enormously with the frequency, to the point that I had to take a logarithmic scale. If we want to meet Broli's constraints of using a "high voltage" generator, let's say 1KV, at the resonance frequency where the impedance is close to 5 ohm, we will need a power of 200 KW, which requires that the experimenters here be much better equipped than the FM or DAB broadcasters!  C.C

Yes, indeed feeding the center of that "plated" dipole with 1kV would require enormous power at resonance. I expected that.
But, I did not expect such low |S11| impedance at resonance.  What is the complex impedance that your sim has calculated at this frequency?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
There is only one resonant frequency, around 600 MHz, frequency corresponding to a wavelength = total length of the dipole.

Total length of the "plated dipole" (with the two elements, 50cm each) is 1m and the free space wavelength of 600MHz is 0.5m, so I do not understand these numbers.
It looks like the 1m "plated dipole" has the same resonant frequency as a 25cm regular dipole.  That is an 400% ratio!

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
A single resonance frequency is not very surprising, because the disk is as large as the dipole, which means that the electromagnetic field can no longer follow the surface of the elements but will occupy the entire volume between the disk and the dipole, resulting in multiple possible lengths for the tuning, and ultimately a complete blur.

Yet, the sim shows a very well defined peak (trough) - not a blur.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
The third view is the current distribution at the resonant frequency.

This view shows that the current at the plates is at its minimum at the resonant frequency.
This means that operating the "plated dipole" at its resonance is contrary to Broli's intended experimental conditions, because he wants the current at the plates to be at the maximum. I think that in his desired operating regime the "plated dipole" would not be an efficient RF radiator.
Could you rerun the sim for a frequency that results in maximum current at the plates ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.15, 10:28:52
The last view is just for fun: the radiation diagram. We see that the antenna radiates with a gain of 6 dBi, which is not bad, but it would be unusable in radio because of its pattern. Placed vertically it would radiate towards the birds or the ground.

Yes, and it would radiate directly at Broli's pickup coil, which would make measuring any current induced in it very challenging due to the RF interference being maximized in that direction (at resonance).
OTOH, the "plated dipole" might make a good direction finding antenna when oriented horizontally.

Hey F6FLT that's actually really cool!

And yeah I knew this wasn't going to be the most optimal design. In fact if I could I wouldn't even want to work in the RF range where energy is radiated and lost. But by virtue of having an open capacitor with such low capacitance there's almost no way around it unless someone knows of an open plate capacitor that has a large capacitance as well and would thus operate below RF frequencies?

Additionally I'm curious about the current density in the below design could you please run a simulation of that?

Quote from: verpies on 2021.05.15, 14:10:39
...
Is that 1mm, the thickness of the disk ?

Yes. I could have taken 0.1 or 2 mm, it would have made almost no difference, the thickness of the conductors plays very little role in the antennas as long as you go beyond the depth of the skin effect.

Quote
But, I did not expect such low |S11| impedance at resonance.  What is the complex impedance that your sim has calculated at this frequency?

This was not S11 but Z11. CST does not calculate the complex impedance.  It can probably be obtained indirectly but not in a simple way. I have added the S11 curve, which tells us that the dipole radiates only about 10% of the power, which means that we have mostly a standing wave system if the generator has a standard 50 ohm impedance.

Quote
Total length of the "plated dipole" (with the two elements, 50cm each) is 1m and the free space wavelength of 600MHz is 0.5m, so I do not understand these numbers.
It looks like the 1m "plated dipole" has the same resonant frequency as a 25cm regular dipole.  That is an 400% ratio!
Yet, the sim shows a very well defined peak (trough) - not a blur.

Yes, there is a clear resonance. But we should have several of them and it is not the case, everywhere else it is "blur".
The dipole+radius length of the disk = 50 cm, so we should have a resonance at 150 MHz (2 x λ/4), and also at 450 MHz (2x 3*λ/4) and at 750Mhz. This is not the case, that is to say that the rod + the disk does not behave as an element of length 50 cm, and that it does not behave either as an element a little longer than the rod, which would be the case if the disk were of small size, the whole constituting then a so-called shortened dipole. Here the system looks more like a dipole of length 2*λ.

Quote
This view shows that the current at the plates is at its minimum at the resonant frequency.
This means that operating the "plated dipole" at its resonance is contrary to Broli's intended experimental conditions, because he wants the current at the plates to be at the maximum. I think that in his desired operating regime the "plated dipole" would not be an efficient RF radiator.
Could you rerun the sim for a frequency that results in maximum current at the plates ?

We have the resonance when the half-wave is equal to the length of the rod, ie when we have a min voltage / max current at the end of the rod = center of the disk, which is what we could expect. We see on the image of the current density that the center of the disk corresponds to a maximum, we are well in the recommended conditions.

Quote
Yes, and it would radiate directly at Broli's pickup coil, which would make measuring any current induced in it very challenging due to the RF interference being maximized in that direction (at resonance).
OTOH, the "plated dipole" might make a good direction finding antenna when oriented horizontally.

The radiation diagram is an indication of the direction of the far field, not the near field, especially when, as here, we have most of the energy in the standing waves around the conductors.
I have added the view of the magnetic near field, which unsurprisingly fits the representation of the current density, and also that of the electric field, which is completely diffuse.

Quote from: broli on 2021.05.15, 14:29:43
...In fact if I could I wouldn't even want to work in the RF range where energy is radiated and lost. But by virtue of having an open capacitor with such low capacitance there's almost no way around it unless someone knows of an open plate capacitor that has a large capacitance as well and would thus operate below RF frequencies?

At these frequencies, the capacitance is huge, at a glance, a few hundreds of pF, I mean it represents a very low impedance. But of course here we cannot consider it at all as a simple capacitance, since we have propagation phenomena because of its non-negligible size compared to the wavelength.

Quote
Additionally I'm curious about the current density in the below design could you please run a simulation of that?

As it is frequency dependent, you must specify the dimensions relative to the wavelength or frequency to test.

So I'm back. It's been a while since I have posted here but I got some interesting news. For a while I had contact with a researcher (Steffen Kühn) who was willing to perform an experiment similar to what is mentioned in this thread. The exact setup is shown in the attached image. Basically it's a CCFL tube near one plate of a capacitor which is oscillated at a high frequency (aka an antenna). Then in the circuit of the CCFL tube there is a high pass filter which measures any voltage change due to this antenna. The effect is very tiny (as I also thought) but there is indeed a longitudinal induction effect on the electrons in the tube. The reason the CCFL tube is used is because electrons move at very high speeds in it and this effect depends highly on that speed.

The full paper can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353659963_Experimental_investigation_of_an_unusual_induction_effect_and_its_interpretation_as_a_necessary_consequence_of_Weber_electrodynamics

Of course this is all preliminary and more experimental proof is needed but it's very exciting nonetheless.

It would be very interesting to see what happens if this is scaled up. The consequences are also staggering. As the counter reaction on the antenna is pure perpendicular to the antenna whereas in the tube it's longitudinal. So basically there is no back EMF on the antenna.

The experiment is interesting, but still far from confirming a force on the electrons. Any non-linear element, such as a plasma tube, can rectify a high frequency ambient signal, which would lead to observations similar to those of this experiment, but without having to invoke any anomaly with respect to Maxwell's electromagnetism.
This possibility was even used by ham radios at a time when very high frequency components were expensive. See for example: "Plasma diode detector using a neon glow lamp (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Exp%C3%A9riences/Em/Plasma%20diode%20experiments%20using%20a%20neon%20glow%20lamp%20-%20Ham%20radio%201980.pdf)".

A more recent experiment has been done on a similar subject, namely the detection of a longitudinal force on the electrons of a plasma. Even if it is not the same goal as Steffen Kühn's, I indicate it here because it is close: Reception of longitudinal vector potential radiation with a plasma antenna (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/LongitudinalEM/Exp%C3%A9riences/R%20k%20Zimmerman%20-%20Reception%20of%20longitudinal%20vector%20potential%20radiation%20with%20a%20plasma%20antenna%20-%20JAP.pdf).
I had tried in vain to reproduce it. High frequency fields are extremely difficult to handle without leakage or artifacts of any kind, they impregnate the whole electronic environment.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.08.10, 14:12:13
The experiment is interesting, but still far from confirming a force on the electrons. Any non-linear element, such as a plasma tube, can rectify a high frequency ambient signal, which would lead to observations similar to those of this experiment, but without having to invoke any anomaly with respect to Maxwell's electromagnetism.
This possibility was even used by ham radios at a time when very high frequency components were expensive. See for example: "Plasma diode detector using a neon glow lamp (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Exp%C3%A9riences/Em/Plasma%20diode%20experiments%20using%20a%20neon%20glow%20lamp%20-%20Ham%20radio%201980.pdf)".

A more recent experiment has been done on a similar subject, namely the detection of a longitudinal force on the electrons of a plasma. Even if it is not the same goal as Steffen Kühn's, I indicate it here because it is close: Reception of longitudinal vector potential radiation with a plasma antenna (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/LongitudinalEM/Exp%C3%A9riences/R%20k%20Zimmerman%20-%20Reception%20of%20longitudinal%20vector%20potential%20radiation%20with%20a%20plasma%20antenna%20-%20JAP.pdf).
I had tried in vain to reproduce it. High frequency fields are extremely difficult to handle without leakage or artifacts of any kind, they impregnate the whole electronic environment.

You are right F6FLT, the experiment is definitely not conclusive but the results and errors do fall within the predicted values. I believe this also offers a very simple explanation to a possible (lenzless) induction effect that many "free energy" device have portrayed as some esoteric energy source (also keeping in mind that many are just blatant frauds). As they use similar design principles having open capacitors near a coil.

An improved experiment would probably be using an electron gun and calculating the momentum change of electrons individually opposed to the plasma tube. Or just go bigger to show a macroscopic effect.

Some reading, and then I will explain why I have asked you to read it

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/plasma

Regards

Mike 8)

A capacitor is normally two plates with an insulator between them. This could be made up of a parallel twin flex with same wire ends joined together, and then leaving your two plate connections.

If this capacitor is then charged up to a high enough voltage, a dielectric barrier discharge will result, this is a plasma. This type of plasma normally can't be seen unless in the dark or the use of special photography.

The plasma is formed due to electron extraction and creating ions. If  a solenoid was wound over the wire pair (capacitor plates) at the time of plasma formation, and a current was passed through the solenoid so forming a magnetic field, the plasma would move along the field lines of the magnetic field. A plasma is like a current carrying wire, so has it's own magnetic field.

This is what you need to think about.

Regards

Mike 8)

I would like to share an update. The paper has now been peer reviewed, amended and published. I hope it would get some traction as the results can hold significant potential (no pun intended).

broli

We still have a great deal to learn about capacitors and what we know is often ambiguous...

Most use the term capacitance loosely and don't even understand what it means. For example, if we separate two charged plates most get the wrong answer assuming the voltage drops when it rises. Then they attribute the voltage rise to a drop in capacitance still not understanding what capacitance is or represents. Even more strange, 200 years on there is still no comprehensive explanation as to exactly what happens in the two charged plates or why. They simply use a bulk and essentially meaningless term called capacitance to explain it...

So I find this field of technology very exciting and there's still a lot to learn.

Regards
AC

There are Capacitors and there are Capacitors.  The diversity of the construct of the Electrical Component is amazing.

The highest quality capacitors are an essential component of High Energy Devices such as the Fission Bomb Detonator or the Rail Gun Discharge Assembly.

The differences in cost of the mundane capacitor versus the highest quality military grade capacitors is staggering.

There are "Secrets" to Capacitor Construction that the general public is not aware of for Security Reasons.  Some just cannot be found on the Surplus Market.

Otherwise, their characteristics are pretty well understood.

I haven't followed this discussion closely until now.  I find Broli's response here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4120.msg91748#msg91748) to be incredibly sensible and precisely on the mark.

Brilliant discussion!

If the induction effect described in the paper is real and independently verified it would have big implications. At its core the effect is simple without having to resort to "mystical" theories about capacitors. But one experiment is not proof enough, more independent verification is needed.

But, I wonder.

Is the Magnetic Induction effect a function of the Aether?

When a radiant field is produced which is either predominantly Electrical or Magnetic, as it propagates through the Aether it resolves into a field containing both equally.

Near Field is predominantly one or the other, but beyond near field the resolution is balanced.

But both are always present at the source whether it be designed to favor Electrical or Magnetic.

At the described frequencies and dimensions this certainly is a a near field effect. The closer the CCFL tube is to the moving charges in the capacitor/antenna the more pronounced the effect would be. The frequency should be irrelevant for the effect but higher frequencies do pose all sorts of problems. It's all about how much current you can sustain in the capacitor/antenna which obviously depends on the capacitance which is very low sadly.

Brolin
This experiment reminds me of the Hiddink one terminal capacitor setup.

I tried to build this quite a few years ago but it was thrown together and didn't work out very well. I may have to take another crack at it...

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.12.13, 06:25:13
Brolin
This experiment reminds me of the Hiddink one terminal capacitor setup.

I tried to build this quite a few years ago but it was thrown together and didn't work out very well. I may have to take another crack at it...

Regards
AC

That Hiddink patent is defective.  It specifies that peeling one plate from a capacitor will discharge that side of the dielectric, untethering the charge on the other plate, when in reality the energy is stored in the dielectric itself.  There really is a Capacity Changer, but it doesn't contain a dielectric layer.  All of this is known to various intelligence agencies and that's why Canada had no interest in buying the patent.  However, Joseph (RIP) did get some results which suggest an electrophorus effect.

Ancient symbols showing concentric circles connected by radial line segments reference this electrical/nuclear technology.  Various patents teach that an electrical current increases in magnitude as it passes through a radioactive substance.  (e.g., the inner circle surrounding the non shown radial spark gap).

edit: Did I say rotating spark gap?

Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2021.12.13, 11:09:49
That Hiddink patent is defective.  It specifies that peeling one plate from a capacitor will discharge that side of the dielectric, untethering the charge on the other plate, when in reality the energy is stored in the dielectric itself.  There really is a Capacity Changer, but it doesn't contain a dielectric layer.  All of this is known to various intelligence agencies and that's why Canada had no interest in buying the patent.  However, Joseph (RIP) did get some results which suggest an electrophorus effect.

Ancient symbols showing concentric circles connected by radial line segments reference this electrical/nuclear technology.  Various patents teach that an electrical current increases in magnitude as it passes through a radioactive substance.  (e.g., the inner circle surrounding the non shown radial spark gap).

edit: Did I say rotating spark gap?

No to go off topic in my own thread but indeed. This video also explains it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXv063O5B8

I do want to see more exploration into Jospeh Hiddinks idea but I fail to see how charge can suddenly "dissapear". Even if the plasma is suddenly extinguished, all ions will bind back to available electrons and the excess charge won't just magically disappear and as the previous video shows it will transfer to the dielectric (glass).

However any ideas to make a large amount of charge appear somewhere would certainly help boost the induction effect that is proposed in this thread  :)

Right.  And it's also not my intention to pull the discussion off topic.  I think the Capacity Changer is important enough to warrant a separate thread.  I talked to Joseph quite a while back, on a different forum, and he did have information which isn't in his patent.

As far as what's presented here, the thing which caught my attention was the statement that current moves towards the coil without reaching it.  This is a recipe for producing a longitudinal pulse in the pick-up coil.  If this pulse is the objective, rather than just detecting current in the disc, there's also another approach which could work.  It seems that when a smoke ring torus containing charged particles stops on impact with a sheet of glass, a longitudinal wave continues moving onwards, at the same speed the torus was moving.  (The opposite of kicking a charged particles into motion).  If a coil can pick up the passage of this wave, the signal's potential will vary with the ring's velocity.  And you can see the passage of the wave if there's a spider web rippling on the other side of the glass.

edit:. When a charged smoke ring torus implodes on impact, there's quite a bit of momentary charge build up in the central region.

After thinking of different ways on how to exploit this concept I return to the same simple ideas. Purely electrical experiments are interesting but they require exotic materials and fast moving electrons (such as CFL tubes or super conductors). However this concept could also be validated mechanically which may offer a more approachable experiment that can be performed. We already know that this can be done mechanically as Steffen proved in his paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332709610_The_detected_direction_of_the_force_onto_a_permanent_magnet_caused_by_the_displacement_current_in_a_wire_gap_supports_Weber_electrodynamics

However this can be used to apply a torque to a magnet (or two magnets in repulsion to be exact). During the short time period the circuit acts like a capacitor a torque is felt by the magnet. As soon as the voltage breaks down and current flows across the gap/tube the circuit is a conventional closed loop circuit balancing all forces on the magnet. If this is repeat in quick succession you can generate a continuous torque. However to see a significant effect the currents need to be at least 50A or higher depending on the scale of the experiment.

The advantage of this setup is that you can leverage the high frequency to make up for the small capacitance of the system. But obviously you need a high voltage source that is able to push these high currents at these frequencies. It's important the current is only driving in one direction or else the torque will be reversed negating the initial push hence the signal is full wave rectified.

The end result is a perpetually accelerating magnet with no back EMF! If anyone is up for a build I'm prepared to sponsor them.

Edit: it's btw not limited to magnets in repulsion a single disc magnet can also be used but then the circuit geometry needs to be a bit different as attached.

Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2021.12.13, 11:09:49
That Hiddink patent is defective.  It specifies that peeling one plate from a capacitor will discharge that side of the dielectric, untethering the charge on the other plate, when in reality the energy is stored in the dielectric itself.

This is not true in the general case. For example if the dielectric is vacuum or air, no recoverable energy will be stored in the dielectric when the field source is turned off.
This is only true for dielectrics that are polarizable and able to retain at least some of their polarization when the field is removed.
Since the principle of the capacitor is to separate positive and negative charges, the energy is exactly the work done to make this separation (W=∫ q.E.dl).
If the dielectric is polarizable, part of the work will be the separation of the charges on the plates and part of the work will be the orientation of the dielectric's dipoles, which corresponds to the displacement field D=Ɛ.E.

A vacuum or air dielectric is not the general case with the capacitors we deal with.  Even though it is true that charge can be pulled onto the removable plate of an electrophorus.  And it's also true that Professor Van deGraaff's son took out a patent for vacuum seals at each end of a drift tube having a rotating central shaft.  This type of Capacity Changer does NOT have a solid dielectric.  The fact that this actual apparatus does work doesn't have any bearing on Hiddink's claims regarding the use of a glass dielectric.

Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.01.04, 19:36:57
A vacuum or air dielectric is not the general case with the capacitors we deal with...

No one has said that.
The case of air or vacuum, and there are many other dielectrics in the same case, is only a counterexample to your general claim that the dielectric would retain energy when the source of the field is turned off.

A particular case cannot be taken to support a general assertion, which you had done, but on the other hand a particular case, taken as a counterexample, invalidates a rule claimed to be general as you have asserted it. This is elementary logic regularly used in science.

Quote from: broli on 2022.01.02, 13:48:28
After thinking of different ways on how to exploit this concept I return to the same simple ideas. Purely electrical experiments are interesting but they require exotic materials and fast moving electrons (such as CFL tubes or super conductors). However this concept could also be validated mechanically which may offer a more approachable experiment that can be performed. We already know that this can be done mechanically as Steffen proved in his paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332709610_The_detected_direction_of_the_force_onto_a_permanent_magnet_caused_by_the_displacement_current_in_a_wire_gap_supports_Weber_electrodynamics
...

Hi Broli

I think there is an important experimental bias in Steen Kühn's experiment, which is the electrostatic forces between the magnet and each plate of the capacitor. The slightest vertical imbalance in its positioning, and this force will pull the magnet up or down.

The idea of a possible disagreement between Weber and Maxwell comes up regularly. A few years ago, I had thought of the following setup: see attached picture. If the capacitor is replaced by a conductor, the magnetic forces Fm and F'm are balanced. But what if we insert a capacitor? Will the force be exerted on the empty part? Will we then have an imbalance? If this is the case, then if the circuit is suspended from a wire, we should observe a deviation of the whole from the vertical.

This experiment is simpler than Kühn's, because although the generator G supplies an AC current, the opposing forces on each vertical conductor are always in the same direction, so we are not limited by the charging time of the capacitor.

I confess that I have not done this experiment, but if a net force was exerted on the rectangular loop with the capacitor, I think we would already know, it would be revolutionary.
According to Weber and Ampere, the forces between current elements should no longer balance between left and right because of the capacitor gap. And yet we still have the balance. It is not that Weber and Ampere would be wrong, but that here we have to take into account the electrostatic forces due to the fact that significant voltages appear at the terminals of the capacitor, voltages that do not exist when the circuit is only a conductive rectangle, and that now cause forces on the rest of the circuit. The calculation of the forces then becomes very complex, it will depend on the geometry of the plates, but I think that all the forces, electric + magnetic, will maintain the equilibrium and that the net force on the loop will be zero.
My point is to say that when we use large capacitors compared to the section of the conductors, we can no longer limit the analysis to the current and magnetic forces, we must take into account the voltages and electrical forces.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.05, 08:05:53
No one has said that.
The case of air or vacuum, and there are many other dielectrics in the same case, is only a counterexample to your general claim that the dielectric would retain energy when the source of the field is turned off.

A particular case cannot be taken to support a general assertion, which you had done, but on the other hand a particular case, taken as a counterexample, invalidates a rule claimed to be general as you have asserted it. This is elementary logic regularly used in science.

A capacitor remains charged only as long as the voltage continues to be applied? I have several air dielectric trimmer caps, which seem to hold a charge when the energizing field is switched off.  Likewise, my high dollar vacuum dielectric doorknob cap.

Hiddink specified using a solid dielectric, such as glass, then removing the inner plate, consisting of a conductive plasma.  In reality, a concentric electrode capacitor does not discharge when the central electrode is simply pulled, or rotated, out.  A completely different approach must be used.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.05, 09:28:21
Hi Broli

I think there is an important experimental bias in Steen Kühn's experiment, which is the electrostatic forces between the magnet and each plate of the capacitor. The slightest vertical imbalance in its positioning, and this force will pull the magnet up or down.

The idea of a possible disagreement between Weber and Maxwell comes up regularly. A few years ago, I had thought of the following setup: see attached picture. If the capacitor is replaced by a conductor, the magnetic forces Fm and F'm are balanced. But what if we insert a capacitor? Will the force be exerted on the empty part? Will we then have an imbalance? If this is the case, then if the circuit is suspended from a wire, we should observe a deviation of the whole from the vertical.

This experiment is simpler than Kühn's, because although the generator G supplies an AC current, the opposing forces on each vertical conductor are always in the same direction, so we are not limited by the charging time of the capacitor.

I confess that I have not done this experiment, but if a net force was exerted on the rectangular loop with the capacitor, I think we would already know, it would be revolutionary.
According to Weber and Ampere, the forces between current elements should no longer balance between left and right because of the capacitor gap. And yet we still have the balance. It is not that Weber and Ampere would be wrong, but that here we have to take into account the electrostatic forces due to the fact that significant voltages appear at the terminals of the capacitor, voltages that do not exist when the circuit is only a conductive rectangle, and that now cause forces on the rest of the circuit. The calculation of the forces then becomes very complex, it will depend on the geometry of the plates, but I think that all the forces, electric + magnetic, will maintain the equilibrium and that the net force on the loop will be zero.
My point is to say that when we use large capacitors compared to the section of the conductors, we can no longer limit the analysis to the current and magnetic forces, we must take into account the voltages and electrical forces.

Your assumption is wrong that Weber or Ampere would predict a force in the proposed experiment. Both force equations respect Newtons third law so all forces will always be balanced and all add up to 0 thus no movement will be seen. Weber and Ampere ALWAYS conserve linear and angular momentum. However the real interesting part is how this momentum does not need to conserve energy.

Below is the most simplistic illustration of this. When a charge moves towards a magnet it will experience a perpendicular force (which Weber, Ampere AND Lorentz all predict equally well). However only Weber and Ampere will allow you to predict the mechanical force on the magnet. Both are mechanically interacting and changing each others momentum. Now if the charge were fixed on a rail its forward velocity would not change but the momentum change will be seen as an angular momentum change that is equal and opposite to that which makes the magnet spin.

First let me remark that no one has ever performed this experiment. This alone would already prove that charges interact directly with the source of the magnetic field. Second what is now interesting and what can be exploited is the fact that the magnet is spinning without the charge having to lose any kinetic energy. Angular momentum fully conserved on the other hand so no violation of any of newtons laws has occurred.

But now if we choose to we can extract the spinning kinetic energy from the magnet. This again is a form of transfer of angular momentum but now it's not due to electromagnetic forces that were based on velocity. So this is the "hack" on gaining energy. You use a special form of a force that depends on the velocity to build up momentum and then you extract this momentum using another kind of force which depends on distance (a spring for example or a break to produce heat or whatever floats your boat).

You will notice that if this energy was not extracted that the spinning magnet would decelerate when the charge moved away again, thus the system would conserve momentum AND energy. But no one said that you can't extract said energy before the charge started to move away again.

One additional point I would like to make, I stopped seeing magnets as a block of material that emit field lines, every magnet can be modeled as a (stack of) coil(s). This is a much easier way to actually visualize the forces acting on it as you can see in the below illustration. Btw this also shows that if the circuit was and actual circuit the force would be seen as an EMF, in the case of a PM the force is seen as a mechanical torque.

Quote from: broli on 2022.01.05, 20:23:46
Your assumption is wrong that Weber or Ampere would predict a force in the proposed experiment. ...

Prove it!

If you place yourself in the Weber/Ampere frame, it is clear that for reasons of symmetry and the current being the same in the whole circuit at a given time, the force on each left or right current elements balances if we have pure conductors. With the capacitor gap, there are no more current elements there, so there is no force, so there is a right/left imbalance.

And if you consider the gap as a current element, then you place yourself in the framework of displacement currents, thus of Maxwell, which is inconsistent with the starting hypothesis.

The weak point of Weber/Ampere is that it is not possible to treat with the current elements, what happens in the gap of a capacitor. It is not that their theory is wrong, it is that it is inapplicable in certain cases like the one treated by Kühn, if one does not complete it by using the "voltage elements" which the use of a capacitor implies and which induce, as already said, electrical forces.

Concerning your experiment, I might be able to give an opinion when you describe it in a more scientific way. "When a charge moves towards a magnet" but how in relation to the magnetic field? "spinning kinetic energy from the magnet" what is it ?... your pre-suppositions not being shared, it is difficult to discuss this, because of the lack of a common reference frame.
I can only advise you to set it up and then provide us with your measurement results.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.06, 10:03:11
Prove it!

The proof is the very equation it self. For every charge that feels a force there is an equal but opposite force on the charge causing that force. So the gap does not matter. If you calculate the force on every current element due to al other current elements the total force will always be 0. I have written some software in the past to perform this kind of numerical simulation to show this as well. I mean if any object pushes/pulls on another object respecting newton's third law then the total force of such closed system will always be 0. I don't know how else I can explain this as this is very basic physics.

As for the proposed magnet experiment. Yes this is not so simple to perform. It requires large charges and sensitive torque sensing devices. Because as Weber also showed himself, his force equation is in fact conservative. Meaning if the charge were to move towards and away from the magnet, the magnet would come to a halt again and lose the gained potential energy. But this is when the process cannot be "hijacked". Imagine dropping something due to gravity, and then being able to switch off gravity for a moment and pull it back up. This is what you can do here.

Quote from: broli on 2022.01.06, 11:41:42
The proof is the very equation it self. For every charge that feels a force there is an equal but opposite force on the charge causing that force. So the gap does not matter. If you calculate the force on every current element due to al other current elements the total force will always be 0.

We all agree with that.
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

In the Ampere/Weber framework, if you integrate the forces that the current elements exert on each other, the resultants on each of the 2 vertical branches can't be equal since the length of the integration path is not the same because of the capacitor gap, while the current is indeed the same in each current element! This is elementary math.
The fact that you had to talk about "charge" instead of "current elements" confirms the impossibility to solve the problem in the pure Weber/Ampere framework. And that is only what I am saying.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.07, 10:11:05
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

What about displacement current elements ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.07, 10:11:05
We all agree with that.
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

In the Ampere/Weber framework, if you integrate the forces that the current elements exert on each other, the resultants on each of the 2 vertical branches can't be equal since the length of the integration path is not the same because of the capacitor gap, while the current is indeed the same in each current element! This is elementary math.
The fact that you had to talk about "charge" instead of "current elements" confirms the impossibility to solve the problem in the pure Weber/Ampere framework. And that is only what I am saying.

Look I don't want to insult you or anything or end up in a useless battle of ego's here. But without a good understanding of these equations we will keep tripping over semantics and spinning in circles.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.07, 10:11:05
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

Weber's equation ONLY deals with charges whereas Ampere's deals with current elements. But both are equivalent. Weber himself derived his force equation from Ampere. So I really don't know what you're talking about here.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.07, 10:11:05
In the Ampere/Weber framework, if you integrate the forces that the current elements exert on each other, the resultants on each of the 2 vertical branches can't be equal since the length of the integration path is not the same because of the capacitor gap, while the current is indeed the same in each current element! This is elementary math.

This is where I believe you tripped. I believe you are assuming you should integrate over the gap too! The whole point of Ampere's current element is that you only deal with the current elements that are REAL, the (imaginary) displacement current is thus irrelevant it does not contribute any force onto the rest of the circuit. You are using classical electrodynamics (displacement current) and adding it to contribute into the Ampere equation which is not correct.
So if you would cut the circuit up into small current element pieces you just go through each piece and calculate the force it's feeling due all other pieces. Again by design and logic this will lead to a total force of 0.

Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.07, 11:26:43
What about displacement current elements ?

I believe this is what's causing the confusion. There is no such thing as displacement current in the Ampere/Weber force equation. Displacement current is part of classical EM to reconcile field theory. Ampere/Weber only deal with the physical parts of the circuit, charges (for Weber) or current elements (for Ampere).

Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.07, 11:26:43
What about displacement current elements ?

Neither Ampère nor Weber speak of displacement currents.

Personally, I have no problem with displacement currents, which are very useful for understanding, nor with Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Let's remember what we are talking about. A study by Steffen Kühn, mentioned above by broli, claims to show a difference in experimental results, compared to the predictions either by Weber or by Maxwell.
I have pointed out an experimental bias, since Kühn does not take into account the electrostatic forces that will necessarily appear between the magnet and the two poles of the capacitor because the voltage is not negligible.

And I have shown with another, simpler setup, that the "current elements", taken alone, are not sufficient to describe the situation. Broli tells us that Weber's electrodynamics answers the problem, however, and from what I understand, it is because it also takes into account charges, not only currents, and therefore electrical forces, not only magnetic ones. I want to believe this, since Weber's electromagnetism is entirely based on the coulombic forces of moving charges. But this is not what is implemented in Kühn's text. He only deals with the question of current elements (his § 2.3), as if there were only magnetic forces, which is not true.

Finally, I have no more conceptual problem with Weber than with Maxwell, and even Weber is rather relevant. Because there is a third way to treat electromagnetism, and that is through relativity. Now in relativity, it is the Coulombian fields, deformed by the motion of the charges (because of the contraction of the lengths), which cause the magnetic effects. With relativity, as with Weber, the fundamental notion is the coulombic field. But again, Steffen Kühn's experiment cannot demonstrate what it claims because only magnetic forces are calculated, when electric forces will also be present.

Quote from: broli on 2022.01.07, 12:26:42
But without a good understanding of these equations we will keep tripping over semantics and spinning in circles.

In my opinion conceptual correctness needs to precede mathematical correctness.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.01.07, 13:16:55
Let's remember what we are talking about. A study by Steffen Kühn, mentioned above by broli, claims to show a difference in experimental results, compared to the predictions either by Weber or by Maxwell.
I have pointed out an experimental bias, since Kühn does not take into account the electrostatic forces that will necessarily appear between the magnet and the two poles of the capacitor because the voltage is not negligible.

Well this is a criticism I can fully agree on! This is why it's published so others can replicate it and challenge it. There are numerous ways to eliminate these electrostatic forces. In fact there might even be a more major flaw and that is due to capacitive coupling. A current could flow across the magnet due to capacitive coupling. In theory the same forces should be measured with or without this coupling BUT you lose the benefit of the "energy hack". With this coupling you are no longer operating as an open gap and similar to a homopolar motor, a back EMF should be experienced as this coupling current will tend to be pushed up/down which on its turn leads to side ways force/EMF countering the applied EMF.

Luckily there is one method to eliminate both of these problems in one go. It's best to use a magnet that is rectangular and longer than its width inside of the gap. The magnet should also preferably have a nonconductive coating to eliminate capacitive couple currents.

Now since Weber's equation is a particle on particle force equation. The advantage is that you can easily simulate them in an n-body simulator. I'm currently working on one using the Unity game engine but still struggling on the learning curve. Hopefully soon I have something interesting to show.

Here's a small sneap peak of an initial simulation result. You can see the sideways force on the moving charge as predicted by the Lorentz force but what's interesting is that that you can also see that it has a longitudinal component.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACdvE1Frjhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQrYI6F9SsY

More simulations will follow when I have some more time.

Quote from: broli on 2021.12.14, 18:15:59
...any ideas to make a large amount of charge appear somewhere would certainly help boost the induction effect that is proposed in this thread  :)

Here's another idea for transferring a charge to the center of a disc, based on one of my own "what if" experiments:

I placed three loops of string through and around a 10" cymbal from a drum set, to provide a non conductive support.  (This was a cheap cymbal, not an expensive Zildjian, with all of the inductive, pulse forming ridges.). Then I positioned this about an inch above the 5" top ball of a Van deGraaff generator.

With the Van deGraaff running, I observed a bunch of weak sparks jumping from the top of the ball to the bottom of the sculptured disc, or to the air below the central boss.  After a couple of minutes, there was a heavy spark between the two electrodes.  This was followed immediately by yellow sparks shooting out from the edge of the cymbal, about every half inch.  (Interestingly, every pair of sparks curved together, joining into single sparks  moving on out.)

What happened right here was the charge on the ball repelled similar charges out of the metal to the top surface of the disc, as an opposite charge was pulled to the bottom surface of the cymbal's central bump, relative to the VdG's polarity.  When the charges built up enough, the heavy spark discharged the equal but opposite charges on the ball and the bottom surface of the  boss.  This left only the charge on the central region of the top of the cymbal.  As a result of this being the only remaining charge, with nothing counter balancing it, the cymbal started functioning as a low value polar capacitor.  Since this capacitance was then much lower than that of the previously charged two electrodes, the voltage on the top went way up, exceeding the potential the polar mass could hold, and that static charge flowed from the center outwards, to and beyond the edge, all around.  (A solid dilectric would block the spark between the two surfaces.)

So, if you have the equipment, repeat this experiment, with the pick coil above the cymbal, and see if it will register the static electric charge flowing outwards.

Everytime the yellow sparks shot out from the edge, the cymbal jumped violently in some direction, depending on how it was slightly off center.  These sparks were longitudinal, so there was an opposite force against the emitting electrode.

The static charge flinged straight out but not back.  A ground ring could be placed outwards from the edge, to prevent charge movement past the coil.

Hopes this helps.

There's always a possibility this configuration can be seen from a different perspective..  Or at least the cymbal could be placed inside a larger sphere.  Or use a little bitty cymbal.  Without the expense of a VdG, an electrode rod could go to the hole at the top, with a spark gap right there, to the cymbal's inner edge.  Any static electric charge connected to that rod (for instance, a conversion circuit) will cause the opposite charge to move to the central area of the cymbal, as well as to the inside of the sphere.  At the same time, a charge which is similar to that on the rod will form on the outside of the sphere, and the outer part of the cymbal.

Turning to all of the ancient symbols of two circles with interconnecting spokes,  the center point for the spark gap is left out.  The spokes can represent the yellow sparks coming off the cymbal, although quit a few less than that are typically shown.  In actuality,  the spokes are parallel inductive rods.  These rods not only discharge the inside of the sphere to the spark gap, they also convert the setup into a pulse forming network for extremely high voltage pulses.

With high pressure in the sphere, there would need to be a seal above the spark gap, especially with a vacuum transmission line.  (Even without the pressure.)  It's noteworthy that Robert Bussard says a REB diode only has to be two and a half feet long, at the ten million volts from a two meter Fusor.

Then, if you are getting a unidirectional signal through your coil, you can make a really big coil, with a really big cymbal.  But if the signal tries to go non unidirectional, divert that part of it to a storage battery having a parallel diode, tied into your output circuit.

I picked up a small bird cage electrode locally and looking at the top, I came up with an idea: maybe a bell will work as the cup electrode for the dielectric gas?

Hi Broli,

This is an old thread but I am only just reading it. You might be interested in this page from Pavel Imris where the primary of a transformer is a "band condenser". He claims the input power is purely reactive, while output power is real.

http://www.electro-generator.com/

An English translation of the patent is here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010003394

Pavel Imris is a prolific inventor with a lot of odd and interesting devices...

Fred

Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.11.06, 23:38:02
Hi Broli,

This is an old thread but I am only just reading it. You might be interested in this page from Pavel Imris where the primary of a transformer is a "band condenser". He claims the input power is purely reactive, while output power is real.

http://www.electro-generator.com/

An English translation of the patent is here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010003394

Pavel Imris is a prolific inventor with a lot of odd and interesting devices...

Fred

Thanks Ortho, I had seen and studied that picture a few times but never did find the originating source. ;D
Need to get one of those under a VNA