PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-06-21, 01:00:08
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7
Author Topic: Magnacoaster  (Read 130744 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1580
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Aside from the balancing of details I see the relevance of the of the Joule thief. It being a mag amp then with the TPU we're creating a virtual core mag field and manipulating that. If the horizontal core and a control coil are biased/magnetized then coupling at 90 degrees is easy. And that field can be manipulated. Magnacoaster does it on a linear platform the TPU is a ring platform, inherent feedback.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

If you mean a magnetic amplifier like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier

A joule thief is not a magnetic amplifier.  It's a simple timing circuit that energizes an inductor and then discharges it through a diode into a load.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Hello MileHigh.  I've looked up that 'what prevents oil rig constructions from corrosion?' and got a whole lot of adverts for vaseline or somesuch together with the galvanisation of various 'noble?' metals - those towards the cathode side of that chart of yours.  You see I study your links and references.  LOL.   Many thanks for the input.  Golly.  It's actually a waste of time looking things up unless WIKI obliges.  But for now I'll assume that it's some kind of current flow - and I'll go further and propose that this is the thing that prevents the rusting on Bill's and Laser's rigs.

Now.  To get back to that interminable quarrel regarding the actual 'thing' that laser's rig is.  If, as it seems, the galvanic effect also requires the systematic corrosion of the materials that are employed - then we've got an anomaly.  Neither laser's rig nor Bill's is corroding. So.  The question, as Bill rightly points out - is what is expended in this generation of current flow?  And it seems that NOTHING is being expended.  It's no good saying that moisture in the air is responsible or even ions in the water.  Bill's rig is buried - and it's debated that it requires moisture at all.  And laser reckons he can get the rotor to turn using distilled water.  Your argument that the material first needs to be studied under a microscope or spectroscope (forget which) is good - but somewhat out of reach of the pockets of most of us experimentalists.  I would have thought that a superficial observation - at this stage - would be enough.

So.  The actual thing is this.  Perhaps we should all defer our conclusions to the efficacy of these devices until we know some of these facts.  And I'll try and get some actual numbers together on the actual wattage dissipated on Laser's rig.  And we could also then leave that 'definition' as to whether this is a battery or a generator - until we know these things.  But I'm inclined to agree with you.  It all needs more careful analysis.  Just one thing.  My intention is to prove this by building a rig myself and NOT using water.  And I put it to you that in the unlikely event that it 'turns' a rotor without the addition of water of any sort - then that will be conclusive proof that it's a generator.  I'm NOT talking continual turn.  I'll be happy with a really small spin. 

Regards
Rosemary
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1580
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
This is my last attempt in regards to the Joule Thief and the magamp:
The two devices are named differently. The central object is a ferrite ring with two windings. Can we not create a core using biased copper?

Otherwise, I guess this is difficult.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
This is my last attempt in regards to the Joule Thief and the magamp:
The two devices are named differently. The central object is a ferrite ring with two windings. Can we not create a core using biased copper?

Otherwise, I guess this is difficult.

Hello Giantkiller.  I love your name.  Not sure if you kill giants or if you're the giant and just kill things.  LOL.  Either way it's impressive.

I'm afraid I don't understand your posts.  I just know that somehow, we're on the same page.  You use acronyms.  I had to look up TPU which apparently stands for Transistor processing unit - or somesuch.  Is that a switch?  HV is what?  High voltage?  And amp - I thought was current but MileHigh referred to amplifier.  You see the problem?  You guys are at a rarefied intellectual reach and I'm your average untrained plodder. 

So.  I'm also not sure what your point is here?  I wonder if you perhaps have the time to explain things more simply.  I actually don't understand.  But if you're too busy - or couldn't be bothered - then that's fine.  Just know that I LOVE the fact that you're also fighting mainstream.  It's my full time obsession. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Here is a link explaining how you can use electric currents to prevent corrosion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection

Quote
For larger structures, galvanic anodes cannot economically deliver enough current to provide complete protection. Impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems use anodes connected to a DC power source (a cathodic protection rectifier). Anodes for ICCP systems are tubular and solid rod shapes or continuous ribbons of various specialized materials. These include high silicon cast iron, graphite, mixed metal oxide, platinum and niobium coated wire and others.

Quote
and I'll go further and propose that this is the thing that prevents the rusting on Bill's and Laser's rigs.

You're not getting it.  When the current flows one way, the metal corrodes.  When the current flows the other way the metal doesn't corrode.  For a oil rig platform, you force the current to flow in the direction that prevents corrosion.  With an earth battery, the magnesium corrodes by definition.

The simple test for Bill's or Laser's rigs is to do a control experiment where you have rigs where the current flow is HIGH.  In both of their rigs the current flow is intentionally minuscule.  Do a high current test with a robust electrolyte and look for corrosion like that.

Quote
The question, as Bill rightly points out - is what is expended in this generation of current flow?

The pdf document I linked to in a previous post explains all of that quite clearly.  There is inherent chemical energy in the ordered arrangement of the metal atoms that is liberated when they oxidize, which is what I have been saying all along.  The entropy of the system increases and electrical and probably heat energy is given off in the process.  The current flow is a result of the oxidation, but as the pdf document I linked to says, it's like the chicken and the egg.

Quote
It's no good saying that moisture in the air is responsible or even ions in the water.  Bill's rig is buried - and it's debated that it requires moisture at all.  And laser reckons he can get the rotor to turn using distilled water.

I have already told you my take on that.  Bill is wrong and it's literally impossible for one of Lasersaber's batteries to contain pure distilled water.  You have to understand that the moment the distilled water enters his battery it starts to dissolve impurities into solution.  Water is a good solvent.

Quote
whether this is a battery or a generator

A generator from what, Rosemary?  The invisible polka-dot genie?  You are back to speculating that these simple galvanic batteries generate electricity out of "nothingness," or some "unknown" source, just like Steorn allege that they create magical energy from nothingness.

All of you that are making these wild speculations should try to collectively turn your hypothesis upside-down, which in reality would mean that you would be turning it right-side up.  Start with the assumption that it is a galvanic battery, and then see if you can come up with any alternative explanations.

Anyway, I am done with this issue.  The suggestion for you guys and gals on OU is to think outside of the box, because you are stuck inside an "alternative" box.  I have proposed some simple control tests, and congratulate you for wanting to try to measure the power output from Lasersaber's battery.  That will not be an easy thing to do at all.  Assuming that you can do that, the next logical step is to do the research to see how much metal should be consumed after say, six months of running the device.  It could be a very interesting exercise.  You have to calculate how much metal should corrode, otherwise there is no point in making the power measurement.

With respect to those earth batteries, it's the same story.  They are simply galvanic batteries and nothing more.  I know that supposedly Nathan Stubblefield made an extensive earth battery setup in the area around his house and that gave him free power to run all of his electrical appliances.  If I recall correctly this was done in the late 19th century or the very early 20th century.  That was the era of the "BIG LIE" because the public was not as cynical or as well informed or educated, especially with respect to scientific matters.  It was the era of Yellow journalism.  As far as I am concerned the whole Nathan Stubblefield story is pure fabrication, a LIE.  The evidence is right there if you want to open your eyes and look at it.  You can only get minuscule amounts of power from a typical earth battery setup, and if you do research on telluric currents you will conclude that you can't possibly use them as a power source.  You are not going to bury tens of thousands of dollars worth of corroding metal in a 10-acre farmer's field so that you can make a pot of hot water on your electric stove.  It was ridiculous then and it's even more ridiculous now.

Good luck to the OU group, this is where I jump off the train.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-10, 11:38:12 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh - you were never on the train.  You're standing on the platform and looking the other way.  And you've blocked your ears so you don't hear when that train comes.  You're impossibly, hopelessly hopeless. 

I have no idea YET whether the Nathan Stubblefield Coil can be considered to be a battery or an inductor.  But here's what I DO know.  Our own device showed an unarguable result at COP >17.  Glen's device showed COP>7.  Those two facts I KNOW.  I have all the empirical evidence that I or any reasonable scientist requires.  I KNOW that both Glen's and my device showed repeated performance levels where more energy was returned to the battery than was ever supplied.  I KNOW that dark energy has been postulated, and subsequently proved and MEASURED using gravitational lensing.  I KNOW that Einstein was quite simply wrong if and when it was proposed that NOTHING could exceed light speed.  YET the vast majority debate this - on a basis of 'probability' for God's sake.  I also KNOW that current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons. Therefore have I absolutely NO FAITH in conventional physics.  They have entirely discounted these things that I KNOW. 

I also KNOW that to get these facts to mainstream has been the most extraordinary challenge.  It is like Drake trying to point an entire crew to a new coastline - when they only see ocean.  I guess, just as I KNOW these things you KNOW that they're not true.  I have no idea what to do with this impasse.  But it's precisely because I have lost my faith with mainstream objectivity that I'm more incline to check my own observations.  I am delighted to learn that it's possible to generate energy from what I never understood but is apparently well known in the galvanic effect.  It's opened whole new chapters for me.  It seems to fall in - ever more nicely - with the concept that current flow is the result of energy inside circuit material.  I've had many a discussion with experts who've explained that this is impossible.  If so - then they've been arguing against the evidence that our chemists are well aware of.  Not only that - but it also seems that each discipline seems to carry knowledge that overlap and contradict other disciplines.  Astrophysicists know things that theoretical physicists dispute.  Chemists know things that electrical engineers refute.  And so it goes.  Not even mainstream 'stick' to one story.  It's all a MESS.  So why get exasperated when those like minded find the need to 'check the facts for themselves'. 

Anyway it's early morning at your end of the world and I suspect that all this has given you another bad night - especially if you're anything like me.  Go and make some coffee and then try and be more tolerant of us mere mortals.

Regards,
Rosemary
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
This is my last attempt in regards to the Joule Thief and the magamp:
The two devices are named differently. The central object is a ferrite ring with two windings. Can we not create a core using biased copper?

Otherwise, I guess this is difficult.

GK,

It is my understanding that a magamp utilizes a saturable ferromagnetic core, and as such creates large swings in the core permeability. I am not certain if a JT does this, or if all JT's do this.

Can we create a core using biased copper?

Not if the purpose of the core is to tighten the magnetic coupling between two or more core windings or to increase the inductance of a winding. It would also not work in creating a saturable reactor effect, if that is a requirement.

A biased copper core will allow 90º coupling, but the coupling coefficient will be that of an air-core.

My .02 anyway.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rose,

Corrosion and Cathodic Protection are electro-chemical processes that involve electron and iron ion (for eg.) migration. If the iron structure is higher in potential with reference to its surroundings, then electrons and iron ions will migrate away from the structure, which means it corrodes.

The process can be reversed so to speak by impressing a DC current onto the metal structure in such a way that electrons migrate to the structure, rather than away from it, and the sacrificial anode (buried in the ground) corrodes instead.

If current does not comprise the flow of electrons, then you have a couple centuries of chemical sciences theory to change and the onus is on you to come up with an explanation for how electro-chemistry works in reality.

This seems like a good reference on CP.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1580
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Well sed!

Only those armed with knowledge who have left the bastions of dogmatic hierarchy still have large inspirations and dreams of how the future, not just might be, but will be despite those that clutch the darkness in the dungeons of ignorance.

I applaud your statements for they show hope and progression towards a definable goal even though some parameters are not excepted across certain thick boundaries. To the victors go the spoils, to the consumers go the debts.

No disrespect meant in any any way. Just recalling history. Do we have to live it again? Is the lack of change our only hope to change(i.e insanity)?

MileHigh - you were never on the train.  You're standing on the platform and looking the other way.  And you've blocked your ears so you don't hear when that train comes.  You're impossibly, hopelessly hopeless. 

I have no idea YET whether the Nathan Stubblefield Coil can be considered to be a battery or an inductor.  But here's what I DO know.  Our own device showed an unarguable result at COP >17.  Glen's device showed COP>7.  Those two facts I KNOW.  I have all the empirical evidence that I or any reasonable scientist requires.  I KNOW that both Glen's and my device showed repeated performance levels where more energy was returned to the battery than was ever supplied.  I KNOW that dark energy has been postulated, and subsequently proved and MEASURED using gravitational lensing.  I KNOW that Einstein was quite simply wrong if and when it was proposed that NOTHING could exceed light speed.  YET the vast majority debate this - on a basis of 'probability' for God's sake.  I also KNOW that current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons. Therefore have I absolutely NO FAITH in conventional physics.  They have entirely discounted these things that I KNOW. 

I also KNOW that to get these facts to mainstream has been the most extraordinary challenge.  It is like Drake trying to point an entire crew to a new coastline - when they only see ocean.  I guess, just as I KNOW these things you KNOW that they're not true.  I have no idea what to do with this impasse.  But it's precisely because I have lost my faith with mainstream objectivity that I'm more incline to check my own observations.  I am delighted to learn that it's possible to generate energy from what I never understood but is apparently well known in the galvanic effect.  It's opened whole new chapters for me.  It seems to fall in - ever more nicely - with the concept that current flow is the result of energy inside circuit material.  I've had many a discussion with experts who've explained that this is impossible.  If so - then they've been arguing against the evidence that our chemists are well aware of.  Not only that - but it also seems that each discipline seems to carry knowledge that overlap and contradict other disciplines.  Astrophysicists know things that theoretical physicists dispute.  Chemists know things that electrical engineers refute.  And so it goes.  Not even mainstream 'stick' to one story.  It's all a MESS.  So why get exasperated when those like minded find the need to 'check the facts for themselves'. 

Anyway it's early morning at your end of the world and I suspect that all this has given you another bad night - especially if you're anything like me.  Go and make some coffee and then try and be more tolerant of us mere mortals.

Regards,
Rosemary


---------------------------
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
as simple as it gets: (see attached) wind this up and give it a go, got to have the pulses tho!

Lot more here than meets the eye, but this is a good start for anyone.   OU straight out of the gate! (not much ok, but beter than a poke in your eye with a stick...)

Grumpy,

Could you please go back and re-upload the png file at this post? It seems damaged and won't open.

Thanks,
.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
A biased copper core will allow 90º coupling, but the coupling coefficient will be that of an air-core.

That cannot be so. The simple fact that there is a copper core in proximity of the coil will definitely change the coupling fromthat of air core because now there is new mass near the core that can act as a bouncing board for the coils emissions back and forth. Same thing happens when you introduce an iron core laminate inside the coil. Things tighten up and start bouncing around. So it will with the copper core.

The problem remains that we are, even with all this technological advancement, still at the infant stage of understanding what electricity and magnetism really consists of.

I asked this question in the shout out about a week ago.

Prove to me that a magnet has two magnetic fields, one that exits the top of one end and the other that enters the bottom of the other end. Just prove this one question. Fact is no one can prove it, but everyone believes it is true. You can't prove it with a compass, or iron powder, or a TV screen reflection of the field. So how did they prove this. Or is this just a belief? So does believing it is true make it true?

This one question I have asked myself for a long time now and I have muddled this question from all angles and only one reasoning makes sense the most and that is, NO, one does not leave and one does not enter the magnet. This one realization has opened up a whole new world of observations about atoms, electricity, magnetism, and the forces involved in all our relations with the devices we are using. For me, now, this is as clear as how SM made his videos. I can now see what is happening and why things happen the way they do. It has nothing to do with what you have been taught in school electronics or physics. We are all on the wrong track to start with. I will have to put this in writing in a long form that people will understand. It may take 10 or 20 pages to get this information across so even the lowest level can understand it as concretely as I can now see it. We are all on the wrong track and thinking the way we do will only lead to dead ends and closed systems. The only logical solution is to have a new look or vision of what this is and work towards it from that perspective. One day, the people of the world had to decide if the world was flat or round. We are again at this juncture but now it is all about atoms, electrons, magnetism, electricity, fields, induction, mass. black holes, etc.

The CERN collidor supposedly smashes atoms/electrons together to simulate the big bang. That is total bullshit. We may as well return to the times were bleeding people was the only way to fight a fever.



---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

If you just take a step back, you might see that I am just looking at the evidence and trying to discern what's really going on.  You are very firmly entrenched in your beliefs and certainly a lot of them go against mainstream.  If you can come up with some hard evidence to back up your theories, and this is eventually accepted within the scientific community as a whole then things would be a different story.  The beauty about science is that it evolves and grows, it's not nearly as rigid as you like to indicate.  And no, I am not saying that if you get mainstream acceptance I will then agree with your theories like a programmable sheep, I would have to understand them and agree with them for myself.

Look at the example of the LASER.  In the 30s, 40s, and 50s I bet you a lot of mainstream scientists doubted they could be created.  In 1960 the first LASER was developed and now you can practically find a LASER in a Cracker Jack box.

Watsup:

About a month ago myself, Poynt, and Grumpy had a brief but interesting conversation about magnetic fields.  The point discussed was that in fact a magnet does not really have two magnetic fields.  There is no such thing as "north" and "south."  Those are just naming conventions that make it easier for us to talk about magnetic fields.  They only exist on paper.  Magnetic field lines travel in closed loops around wires carrying current or in closed loops through magnetic dipoles.  You can't forget that a magnetic dipole is just like a loop of wire carrying current, so you are back to the simple definition; closed loops around "wires" carrying current.  Their is no "north" or "south" just like there is no start or end to a circle.

Quote
core that can act as a bouncing board for the coils emissions back and forth

You may want to do some research about this.  The visualization that I use is that a magnetic core is like a low valued resistor that lets current flow where the current is the magnetic flux.  Air and copper are like high-valued resistors that restrict the current flow.  The permeability of the material is what determines the "resistance."  There is no "bouncing" going on in what you are trying to visualize, more like you are looking for a path for the "current" of magnetic flux to flow.  If the path has an obstacle, then not much magnetic flux flows, if there is no obstacle then a lot of magnetic flux flows.  That's why a toroidal core gives you such a high inductance and makes for such a great transformer, the magnetic flux has a clear path to flow with no obstacles in the way.  If you cut a radial slice out of the toroid, then the there is an obstacle in the path and the inductance drops dramatically.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-10, 18:47:53 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
If current does not comprise the flow of electrons, then you have a couple centuries of chemical sciences theory to change and the onus is on you to come up with an explanation for how electro-chemistry works in reality.

This seems like a good reference on CP.

.99

I've argued the electron issue ad nauseum.  And I'm reasonably certain you've read it but just wont engage.  But that's your right.  But I really need to own up to knowing nothing about the chemical interaction on these galvanic effects.  I really do need to do more homework.  But it's something that I'll work on.  That link was hopeless.  It won't 'open' - but thanks for trying.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Well sed!

Only those armed with knowledge who have left the bastions of dogmatic hierarchy still have large inspirations and dreams of how the future, not just might be, but will be despite those that clutch the darkness in the dungeons of ignorance.

I applaud your statements for they show hope and progression towards a definable goal even though some parameters are not excepted across certain thick boundaries. To the victors go the spoils, to the consumers go the debts.

No disrespect meant in any any way. Just recalling history. Do we have to live it again? Is the lack of change our only hope to change(i.e insanity)?


 ;D  I knew we were kindred spirits here Giantkiller. 
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3894


Buy me some coffee
link works ok for me Rose
   
Group: Guest
Hello

the pictures darkspeed posted on page 3 are not available any more.
Can anyone help?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
Watsup:
About a month ago myself, Poynt, and Grumpy had a brief but interesting conversation about magnetic fields.  The point discussed was that in fact a magnet does not really have two magnetic fields.  There is no such thing as "north" and "south."  Those are just naming conventions that make it easier for us to talk about magnetic fields.  They only exist on paper.  Magnetic field lines travel in closed loops around wires carrying current or in closed loops through magnetic dipoles.  You can't forget that a magnetic dipole is just like a loop of wire carrying current, so you are back to the simple definition; closed loops around "wires" carrying current.  Their is no "north" or "south" just like there is no start or end to a circle.

Well, good no North or South but what about the field. Does it come out on end and enter the other end and if so, how was this ever proven with all the science and technology we have at Mans' disposal, how is it proven?

You may want to do some research about this.  The visualization that I use is that a magnetic core is like a low valued resistor that lets current flow where the current is the magnetic flux.  Air and copper are like high-valued resistors that restrict the current flow.  The permeability of the material is what determines the "resistance."  There is no "bouncing" going on in what you are trying to visualize, more like you are looking for a path for the "current" of magnetic flux to flow.  If the path has an obstacle, then not much magnetic flux flows, if there is no obstacle then a lot of magnetic flux flows.  That's why a toroidal core gives you such a high inductance and makes for such a great transformer, the magnetic flux has a clear path to flow with no obstacles in the way.  If you cut a radial slice out of the toroid, then the there is an obstacle in the path and the inductance drops dramatically.
MileHigh

What is the difference between a magnetizable core or a copper core? As soon as the impulse coil is energized and imparts to the core, that core can then impart to a second coil. But what the core imparts to the second coil also HAS TO impart back to the impulse coil because the impulse coil and the secondary coil are on the same core. For the core there is no differentiation possible. It can receive from one but will always give back to both. So how did the core impart back to the impulse coil. Same way it imparted to the secondary. This is the "bouncing around" between the impulse coil and the core. Regardless of iron laminate, copper core, mineralized water rust core or immersion, as long as there are other atoms with electrons near the impulse coil, you will get "bounce back". While one may bounce back more then another mass or material is besides the point.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Just a little "post debate" comment or two for your consideration:

Quote
I am delighted to learn that it's possible to generate energy from what I never understood but is apparently well known in the galvanic effect.  It's opened whole new chapters for me.  It seems to fall in - ever more nicely - with the concept that current flow is the result of energy inside circuit material.

What you might not realize is that's what a standard lead-acid battery is.  It's what you have been working with the whole time.  If you can get access to the paper that Poynt linked to there are some sample chemical equations that show you the real chemical reactions that create current flow from the corrosion of metal inside a battery and the reverse chemical reactions that turn the current flow back into the base metal.

When people talk about a battery being charged by "resonance" or that "voltage alone induces a battery to charge itself with almost no current" they have been misled by the likes of Bedini and Bearden and others.  It can be alleged that they do this to exploit people for their personal financial gain.  A battery demonstrates the principle of the conservation of energy.  You can do tests and make precise measurements to confirm this in a chemistry lab.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Hi MileHigh.  I actually know about the chemical process in the standard lead/acid.  I was ably guided into this by Farrah.  Where has she gone?  Another victim of that insidious propagandising at EF.com?  In any event.  What I'm now trying to get my head around is the process of zinc corrosion with salt.  But I'm finding some things on this that I can also read - thank God.

I've sacrificed a perfectly good game of bridge to get my head around this.  I won't be able to do much tomorrow and time as ever, is 'fleeting'.  But the good news is that I'm getting some answers.

Peterae - it's no good telling me you can open what I cannot.  I get a small little block of something that I simply cannot recognise.  I can't make it bigger - I cant read any text.  And when I use that little + button I simply get a microscopic view of a truncated picture of something entirely indecipherable.  I wish people would give links that are easy to open.   But MileHigh's links work well and I can obviously read his direct references.  By the way.  Can you sort out the problem of losing posts when they're posted.  I have to go back to the email notice to get back into the link - or page through a whole lot of references until I see my name.  It's really not user friendly.  Not that I'm complaining in general.  All else is good.  Just this system is a bit brittle in some aspects.

Anyway.  I'll press on pressing on.  I'm gradually getting my head around the distinctions between the different reactions.  

Regards,
Rosemary

Golly.  That was a first.  I posted and actually saw my post.  Was this fixed?  Or was I doing something wrong?  In any event.  I'll let you know if it happens again.
   
Group: Guest
Watsup:

Quote
Well, good no North or South but what about the field. Does it come out on end and enter the other end and if so, how was this ever proven with all the science and technology we have at Mans' disposal, how is it proven?

You are probably not going to like this answer.  The field extends out to infinity, and it adds with other fields, where they are vector additions.  You can approach your answer from many angles, I will give you the one that sticks out in my mind:

There is a blackboard derivation where you work out the answer to the following question:  What does the magnetic field look like for an infinitely long straight wire that has a radius of one milimeter and is carrying one ampere of current?  You do the work and you arrive at the answer:  The magnetic field lines are wrapped around the wire in concentric circles, and the further away from the wire you are the weaker the magnetic field is.  Once you know that, then you can determine what the magnetic field is like for any setup.  So if you curl up that wire into a coil, the magnetic lines of force travel through the center of the coil and leave one end, then wrap around and go back in the other end, completing the loop.

If you hold a simple bar magnet in your hand, the interaction with the Earth's magnetic field creates a "magnetic bubble."  Try thinking about that.  (Addendum:  It also depends on the orientation of the magnet with respect to the Earth's magnetic field. )

Quote
What is the difference between a magnetizable core or a copper core?

You should read up on permeability and permittivity.  Perhaps try the Hyperphysics web site.   I can't answer the rest of the stuff in your paragraph.  It looks to me that you have worked out some sort of a system in your mind for explaining coil and core interactions but I don't get it.  Before you can start branching out into new directions, I think you should try to learn the basics first.

Quote
as long as there are other atoms with electrons near the impulse coil, you will get "bounce back"

Not at all.  Most atoms and molecules will not respond to the magnetic field generated by a coil.  The key is in the permeability of the material.  You are working with a preconception that is not necessarily serving you well so I suggest that you try doing some digging.  Sometimes the maths look overwhelming when you try to do some research and the trick there is to look more at the text descriptions and the graphs that show the waveforms and stuff like that.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-11, 00:04:21 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh - Just a quick comment.  Conceptual physics is very interesting but needs to be based on fact.  I'm not sure that a magnetic field stretches into infinity.  If you apply iron filings to your standard permanent magnet it gets to a 'saturation point' beyond which no more filings 'stick'.  That's the extent of it's boundary.  And it seems to imply that there's a finite quantity of flux in any given magentic field.  And what's curious about the coil is that the flux on the outside then moves in one direction and the inside moves in another.  This means that the smaller fields from that 'thin wire with a current' - then also 'join up' into a coherent toroidal field in the coil.  Which also indicates that the flux moves independently of the material in the magnet itself.  Both these points are important.  It implies that the field itself may be based on some kind of invisible matter.

LOL.  I think I'm going on going on.  And I need to get back to all those Wiki references.  Just thought I'd mention this.  

Regards,
Rosemary

edited.
« Last Edit: 2010-10-10, 22:36:05 by aetherevarising »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1580
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
@aetherevarising and WU,

I see the grand scheme as any interaction, interference or dynamic displacement. Pick your platform if you will. Keely did things with sound that we assume had to be done chemically or with detonation. And we STILL use a club for alot of processes!
Rife and Dotto showed interactions and molecular biasing with fields.
We have seen the lighting of incandescents with kinetic energy vs current.
I say there are only 3 ways to cause this effect:
Bloch wall manipulation, Bloch wall manipulation, Bloch wall manipulation. Think about that. Wattsup you showed the bucking field coils, my GK4 did the same thing. Yours lit an air led, mine bit the shit out of me. I raised a parameter and blew up equipment, I even went down in mass i.e itsy bitsy coils like your 1 wire runs with 90 degreed windings at both ends. Still seen effects. You could not avoid it.
I look at Magnacoaster's. He jacks the Bloch wall in air between 2 coils. That is a linear model. But the tpu with 3 layers is the same thing but a flat model! We know SM liked to hide things. Well all his TPUs are black. And you know why? Because the HV manipulation in them using Sparkgaps or neons. Everything is taped up to hide the one thing that lights up. Put a neo in the stungun terminal loop. watch the firing. It thumps! Now we know every multiple coil config we see has either a spark gap or some kind of field manipulation in it. Does anyone know that stunguns now have a neon in them at the first micro gap instead of the screw adjustable metallic gap? Don Smith, Tariel Kapanadze, Nicola Tesla. The abrupt firing hits the first coil and it screams explosion! because the coil cannot conduct that fast. What do we get in return? 1k fold. Mother nature comes back pissed off because the nest was disrupted. Once again the coils cannot conduct that fast. We are know stuck in a loop should we fire again.
It is almost like resonance is the firing the gap at the right time, like 5k?
So I am now firing a stun gun into a neon and in the conductor loop I have a center toroid thingy. The collector is HV as is ... I many combinations to try yet.

I am trying to figure out if SM used HVDC or HVAC and in which configuration.
But the stungun ckt cannot go away. That makes it look simple and 'Its the way the coils react' quote SM. I am having a difficult time with SM using resonance in the TPU models he showed. Unless it is even simpler than I think.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller - golly.  I've been rolling.  The only thing you didn't make into an acronym was my name.  And I can honestly say that I understood absolutely nothing in your last post.

At least I had a good laugh.  Clearly it's not only my vision that's somewhat impaired.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1580
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Guess I've been in TPU land too long. My only hope is Wattsup understands.


---------------------------
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-06-21, 01:00:08