Out of bounds

[giantkiller]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UFj62ZyDlHoJ:lofi.forum.physorg.com/Are-All-The-Textbooks-Wrong_18233.html+electron+spin+momentum+not+conserved&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Hey, guys.  I'm on a long family trip, by car, visiting relatives in Michigan, Maryland, Penna, etc. and away from the lab TOO long.  But I've been thinking more about the Faraday paradox and the following -- which also appears to be paradoxical.  I posted this question on a physics forum, no response yet. 

Can anyone provide an answer?
I'm a retired Physics Professor, and this is an important question to me... but I admit I'm stumped....  unless I give up the idea that momentum is always conserved in electromagnet devices.... 

Thought experiment I.

Consider two loops of wire, 2 small dipoles B and C , with a common axis z (facing each other) and (say) 30 cm apart B to C. At the speed of light, information (including a change in magnetic field) will require 1 nanosecond to travel from C to B.

1. Have the current on in coil B for some period of time at the start, so the B-fields at C is established in the +z-direction.
2. Turn loop B off rapidly (fall time < 0.3 ns, say) at the same time that a current in loop C is turned ON (rapidly, rise time <0.3ns, and opposite sense with respect to the previous current in loop B ).

3. In this way, as the current is turned on in loop C, it is immersed in the field from loop B and therefore both receives an impulse to the right, in the +z-direction.

However, loop B will be "off" (and open so no effective eddy currents) when the "return" field from loop C arrives.

Thus, loop C (which is free to move) will experience an impulse giving it momentum in the +z direction (to the right), whereas loop B will not experience an impulse to the left.

I think this argument is sufficiently simple to sketch and to ponder.

Thought Experiment II.
However,
If you argue that there is momentum to the left "in the magnetic field" from loop B, I will add a third loop to the left (call it A), and again, as B is opened rapidly (short fall time) -- at the same time that a current in A is turned ON (rapidly, and SAME sense with respect to the previous current in loop B ).

In this way, loops A and C (both free to move) as they turn on are immersed in the field from B while having currents in the opposite sense -- therefore BOTH loops receive an impulse to the right, in the +z-direction.

Oh, and I will need to turn off the currents in loops B and C rather quickly, so that they both receive impulses in the +z direction without "feeling" the B fields from each other, for they will be "off" when those fields arrive.

If you're concerned about fringe fields, I can add a rod of very high magnetic permeability down the z-axis, extending from A to C, so that essentially all the magnetic field is contained on the z-axis.

Whew -- simple thought experiment, but one that could actually be done IMO.

What will happen? Will there be momentum imparted to the right, but not to the left?

Hey, thanks for thinking about this with me.
- Prof. Jones (Emeritus)

[giantkiller]

Captured from:
Zero Point Energy by Thomas Valone
Page 67.


SM never used the word antenna.

Two large loops one facing the ionosphere and the other the planet. Static or white noise from ambient environment amplified and fedback into the magnetic bias of the large loops. Effective aperture.

[EMdevices]

Only 100 times?   oh how sad!  

I can amplify noise 1000+ times with a good high Q resonator!


Professor is talking about electromagnetic field propulsion, my favorite topic!  Yes fields carry momentum.


EM

[BEP]

EM,

I would like to see the amplifier you would use to amplify a signal below 100 K (That's 'Kelvin') 

And the good Prof's idea has a good deal of merit, in my book. However, I think we would find that magnetic and electric fields not only carry momentum but 'ARE' momentum 

Each being momentum of the other ( OK I will shut up now  )

[EMdevices]

WW,  I have seen resonant tank circuits with Q values on the order of 100 000    

And why operate at 100K ?   We could, but hey there's more noise energy at 300 K    

[BEP]

I suppose they were shooting for under 100K because that is about as close as many could go on the way to ZPE.

If so, any amplifier used would need to operate below that temperature or the target energy would be lost in the amplifier noise.

As far as Q goes... the more the better - sometimes. If we were trying to collect such low level energy I think we would need a very wide-band system. Since higher Q normally means more narrow bandwidth I think high Q wasn't in their plans for collecting ZPE.

300 K? Yes, more signals but less energy 

[giantkiller]

High Q gives a very nontenuous field that will receive the excitation of the charge that envelopes all...

[PhysicsProf]

  Interesting topic...  lots of fun.  Thanks for introducing this, GK.

[giantkiller]

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-20.html

A1 pumping standing electromagnetic wave with a high magnetic field strength at the positive polarization of L1 to break in time for the "pull" of the positive charges in the mode of resonance, and creating conditions in A2 by the compensation inductance L2 of the upper half for the induction of an electromagnetic wave in it with minimal loss of power Don has achieved the required strength of the magnetic field induced by the current wave of nodes in A2 to capture the positive charges. In a standing wave as we all know the form of voltage and current nodes, where the current and voltage almost pass by value in each other. Therefore, the current node at resonance is quite a powerful magnetic field. In essence, this powerful magnetic trap in a mode of resonance has a lot of "space" to capture particles. Connecting a bank of capacitors, designed by Don Charging a cold shock to the traveling wave regime to A2 (traveling wave is formed in agreement with the output impedance of the source-impedance load) Don received a transporter for a cold current in the form of a traveling wave in the A2 and the capacity for accumulation of power in the form of battery bank of capacitors C3, a traveling wave.

[giantkiller]

www.overunity-engineering.com no longer valid.

[giantkiller]

Dual Plasma ring

[giantkiller]

At r/ChatGPT Discord

I win: '@OpenAI Can you please supply a schematic for a toroidal power unit' retrieves no answer. ... and the server crashes into oblivion.

[e2matrix]

 

I figured I'd give it a try.  First response said something along the lines of it can't be done and violates the law of thermodynamics.   So I asked it to regenerate a response and got this:

"I'm sorry, but I cannot display images or diagrams as I am a text-based AI language model. However, I can describe the Steve Marks TPU and how it works.

The Toroidal Power Unit (TPU) is an experimental device invented by Steve Marks, which he claims can produce large amounts of electrical power with very little input. According to Marks, the TPU uses a combination of high-frequency resonant circuits, magnetic fields, and non-linear effects to produce a net gain in energy.

The TPU consists of a toroidal core made of laminated steel, around which are wound several coils of wire. The toroidal core acts as a transformer, and the coils are connected in a specific way to create a resonant circuit. The resonant circuit is driven by a high-frequency pulse generator, which is synchronized with the resonant frequency of the coils.

When the resonant circuit is excited, it creates a magnetic field that is amplified by the toroidal core. The magnetic field induces an electric current in the coils, which in turn creates a feedback loop that amplifies the magnetic field further. The process continues, and the result is a self-sustaining oscillation of the resonant circuit.

According to Marks, the TPU produces more electrical power than it consumes, due to the non-linear effects in the resonant circuit. However, the device has not been widely accepted by the scientific community, and there is little evidence to support Marks' claims."

[Allcanadian]

e2matrix

I figured I'd give it a try.  First response said something along the lines of it can't be done and violates the law of thermodynamics.   So I asked it to regenerate a response and got this:

It's a valid response because any response is based on our understanding of the subject matter at the time.

I have heard better responses by people then again on average most seem to be worse because we tend to introduce our own biases and beliefs into the equation. Most AI's tend to sound like what we refer to as a realist. In one sense it is a mistake on our part to think an AI would be able to fill in the gaps or connect the dots based on our own perceptions or inadequacies.

However we as real people having some imagination and creativity should have the ability to read between the lines. That is to take what the AI presents at face value based on it's programming, no more no less. I such I didn't find it's response comical in any sense of the word only instructive. It only knows what it knows just as you or I do and what we know is seldom if ever the same. Our mistake is in presuming it should be the same when we all have different knowledge and experience, we are never the same in any sense of the word hence the complication.

What may be most relevant is not what is present but what is not. If this pitiful amount of information is the most it could gleen from what is out there it's no wonder it failed to amount to anything. Ergo, don't blame the AI for a lack of information based on a consensus of what others may or may not understand or you may always be left wanting.

AC

[Sm0ky2]

Seeing as the question defined it's own answer, there is not much to add to it.

This is exactly what happens.

Some of you may have experienced this, when say a transformer gets old and does't hold phase
darn things will shake themselves right off the bolts

Leaving only one real question:

What about this is paradoxical?
(i.e. which part of physics is interpreted such that it shouldn't be the case?)

This is the effect discovered by Dr. Thomas T. Brown, which is often grouped in with ionic propulsion.
While the 'lifter' toy IS a form of ionic propulsion, Dr. Brown made a clear distinction between the electric field and the ionic field, one causing a force on the other.
His larger crafts transferred no ions, nor did they create unidirectional ionic wind
They operate on electric field manipulation, much like asked and answered in the original post.

This does make rise for additional questions:
Is the momentum imparted into the inductors from the momentum of the field?
or does relativity actually imply that their respective time references change with respect to spatial locality?

From the perspective of the field boundary: the other field is only receding or advancing at the speed of light
For the T in the equation to remain observably constant, the space field itself must bend.
we cannon observe from the perspective of the bent spacetime,
therefore our convenience is to adjust T from the perspective of the observer.

From the perspective of the moved inductor: it didnt move, its just in another location.
The momentum of the inductor is conserved with respect to its own field.
Meaning it has the same momentum it started with when it arrives.
The inductors remain motionless and the space around them bends:

This is difficult to conceptualize from our perspective, because we observe the effects the field has on other things around it, such as the ferrous (or air) core, or our sensory equipment, other inductive or magnetic objects that are affected by the change in location of the field.