PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-12-10, 10:21:22
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Author Topic: Dr. Jones - Current Research and Historical Notes  (Read 83241 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3116
tExB=qr
If configured properly, foils can be used to supply a electric field in a particular direction.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  Here is a video where Akula (himself) takes apart his coil, showing two copper foils.  There is an English translation, but a bit hard to follow.  Sounds like the capacitance provided by the two copper foils is important to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpx1SJdXnmo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m10s

The core (sitting in the background) looks the same (or nearly so) to that specified by Lasersaber. 
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
 Our colleague Mark (Slider) has done a near-replication of the LaserSaber circuit, and provided a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIcvbRzhdzo

It's late, so I will comment more tomorrow -- looks good so far -- Thanks, Mark!
   
Group: Guest


....................
 Sounds like the capacitance provided by the two copper foils is important to him.
.............
To me, too  ;D





   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  SJR + Akula 3-coil transformer circuits by Groundloop and TROS (latter from video); some differences.
@Groundloop -- do you have any recent results to share?

  Mark V (Slider) is also working on this, I spoke to him today and he is building, learning, making progress.

  
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 337
 SJR + Akula 3-coil transformer circuits by Groundloop and TROS (latter from video); some differences.
@Groundloop -- do you have any recent results to share?

  Mark V (Slider) is also working on this, I spoke to him today and he is building, learning, making progress.

  

PhysicsProf,

Non other than my version of the circuit works OK with a 12 Volt LED. I'm using a normal
ferrite toroid. I have a 1:10 coils number of turn ratio. So when the circuit is run from 1,5 AA
battery, then I get approx. 15 Volt over the L1 coil. There was a strange effect when I did
put a wire from top of L1 to the heat sink. The light output was much stronger. But the
current usage also did increase. All in all, it is a very simple circuit to build and have only two
parts, the transistor and the coil. So as a LED lamp driver, great circuit.

Groundloop.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
Thanks, Groundloop!

I've started a new thread on another research path, and wish to record this important research path here:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2647.msg42146#msg42146

Not sure what is going on with this experiment, but it is a confirmation of earlier results.   Perhaps call it "Anomalous Heat accompanied by Anomalous Transmutation". (AHAT)

In particular, the evidence for p-7Li nuclear reactions is quite striking...

See also anomalous transmutation experiments by Iwamura et al. in Japan, reported here:
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/

(I attended that conference at the University of Missouri and delivered a paper.)

« Last Edit: 2014-10-11, 00:08:06 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
Senator Ted Cruz on the Repub victory, Nov 2014.  At the end, he speaks of the need to embrace an "ENERGY RENAISSANCE"! Less than a minute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3SkziIxbJI&feature=youtu.be

I hope this includes embracing novel, alternative energy sources and not just fossil fuels on American soil.

Let's support the drive for a truly liberating Energy Renaissance, EnRen - an End Run around fossil-fuel domination!

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  Just before the new year begins, I'll stick my neck out a little and prognisticate that 2015 will be a banner year for breakthrough experiments, and that at least one of these areas will "breakthrough" with repeatable experiments (note that I did not say "non-controversial"):

1.  Transmutation/geofusion (along with anomalous heat production in some cases) in experiments involving hydrogen isotopes (p, d, t) and various elements, such as Ni, Cs, B, and lithium.
See talks given here (including one of mine): http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/
Talks on the subject are anticipated at ICCF-19 to be held in Padua, Italy, April 2015.

2.  EmDrive - thrust produced by microwaves in a shaped resonant cavity; apparently violating conservation of momentum (according to conventional physics).  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive#cite_note-newscientist-3  which references recent and planned experiments by NASA.

Note intriguing comments on the New Scientist publication regarding the EmDrive and the apparent violation of conservation of momentum:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html

3.  And/or anomalous heat/energy production demonstrated in devices employing changing magnetic flux or other electro-magnetic means.  One example:

http://www.3universo.com/3universo/slavek/ttf2/fields10.htm
« Last Edit: 2014-12-28, 13:52:40 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  I wrote to my colleague Mark ("slider") today about an idea to use inexpensive, mass-produced pancake coils in the "EZ-spin" motor+generator designed by Lasersaber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM

 and developed by Lidmotor-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjL4dadcvkA .

Well, Mark was already doing just that!  Evidently our "minds run in the same channels."  Here's his video from yesterday; significant progress is being made in this arena:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ia6tBf6hsU  .

Note that his motor+generator runs for over 3 hrs on a 1F capacitor starting at 0.75V and it quits at 0.66V.  Keep an eye on this path...

Update 15 Jan 15 -- 11 hour run on the 1F cap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOxltHeMeSM&feature=youtu.be
Good work, Mark!



« Last Edit: 2015-01-16, 02:40:08 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
"Y CHALLENGE"

   I suppose a guy could look at it as a slap in the face, but I choose rather to consider it as a challenge. 

  You see, the BYU Physics Dept. had me scheduled to give a colloquium talk on September 5, 2012, on “Alternative Energy: History and Prospects.” I had been invited to speak and the talk was publicly announced; see screen-copy below.

  All winter long, I was so looking forward to speaking to the students, once again to see them and share some exciting news.

However, I was later told that the BYU physics faculty had met apparently some time in March and voted that I would not be allowed to speak after all! What the heck!?! 

 Actually, they did not tell me they were going to reconsider nor did any in the BYU physics department inform me afterwards of their decision – until a fellow in Nevada noticed that someone else was scheduled for my day, and then I emailed the department chair to ask what was going on.  Curiously, the chair declined to email an answer even that my colloquium had been cancelled, but would only speak to me verbally. 

Bizarre, I thought, to cancel a BYU Physics colloquium scheduled by a Full Professor of Physics (Emeritus at the time) who had served for over 21 years at BYU, and not even tell him you had canceled it!?

OK, so I went to the Chair's office and he informed me that indeed my colloquium had been canceled by vote of the BYU Physics Department faculty.

Wow! What is so controversial about alternative energy?  Especially by a full Professor of Physics Emeritus who had researched alternative energy for decades!  I taught at BYU for over 21 years, yet they reject my colloquium behind my back? 

Whoa!  I take that as a challenge to spur research.

  I was going to talk about over three DECADES of research regard muon-catalyzed fusion and its daughter “cold fusion” aka “geo-fusion”/ along with other non-conventional alternative energy approaches. After all I had published in Scientific American (July 1987) and the British journal Nature (May 1986 and April 1989) as well as Physical Review Letters on these topics – and indeed I have devoted my career to exploring alternative energy.  (Web-page http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ )

Undaunted, I gave the talk I was planning to give at BYU a few weeks later at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.  Yes, they allowed me to speak!  Sure, I discussed muon-catalyzed fusion and geo-fusion/cold fusion and all those supposedly weird yet exciting topics.

I explained that the BYU geo-fusion results, published in Nature in1989, had been put on firm footing in subsequent experiments, with 100% reproducibility in research conducted in Japan and Europe.  [E.g., Czerski, K.; Huke, A.; Biller, A.; Heide, P.; Hoeft, M.; Ruprecht, G. (2001). "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments". Europhysics Letters 54 (4): 449–455. Quote:  “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].”

These researchers at the University of Missouri did not call it “bad science” at all, but listened and commented in scientific fashion.  One of the professors then invited me to speak at the next International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to be held at that University of Missouri the following summer.  I accepted and spoke and greatly enjoyed meeting with colleagues in this ongoing research.
[Jones, Steven E. "Empirical Evidence for Two Distinct Effects: Low-level d-d Fusion in Metals and Anomalous Excess Heat". 18th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. University of Missouri.]

To be fair, some of this research is cutting-edge and therefore controversial.  I noted that Dr Harvey Fletcher, another BYU graduate, had puzzled over Henry Moray's device, and admitted he could not deny it nor explain it.  Cutting-edge research is often “out of the box.”

 I welcome the challenging nature of research that can benefit humanity with a NEW untapped energy source.  And I see nothing wrong with openly discussing these studies with students, at BYU and the University of Missouri and elsewhere.  Students are sharp and can decide for themselves what lines of research to pursue.  They don't have to be “protected” from research colloquiua as if they cannot think for themselves.

After my talks at the University of Missouri, the St. Joseph News-Press covered my alternative energy research responsibly: http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_3c2ae1c1-423d-576e-9d54-10ef13b6c131.html

I asked a member of the BYU physics faculty about the vote against letting me speak.  He replied that
Quote
“I initially advocated for your presentation but changed my mind.”
  And, he explained further,
Quote
“I read about Moray device online at http://thmoray.org/ . The information there is not encouraging. The Radiant Energy device looks like bad science: sworn affidavits, anecdotal evidence, affirmations mixed with religious sentiment, a devoted band of true believers, a plea for financial support, assertions of powerful entities trying to suppress information, and no credible scientific explanation, no access to experimental details, and a secret key component that no one can reproduce in spite of "millions" spent in that effort.”

Of course, one of the affidavits was by Dr. Harvey Fletcher, a famous physicist with BYU connections, who gave considerable details about the Moray experiment, hardly “anecdotal evidence.”  True, Fletcher could not explain the Moray device even after inspecting it, but that does not invalidate his carefully recorded observations of the Moray device. And my talk would cover MUCH more than this one example anyway!

I wrote back to this BYU physics professor:
Quote
“1.  Did you think that my talk was about the Moray device only?  ...
A simple email or phone call would have clarified
...
To me, the goal is to get this into the hands of families in third-world countries, as I did with the solar cooker.  It is apparent that you and the department majority are not interested.  Sigh.”

The BYU Professor declined to answer my question.

To me, this is not a game, but an opportunity for cutting-edge research and a sought-for breakthrough which may benefit humanity for centuries!  I do not claim we are “there” yet – but I do claim there are evidences, “anomalies” I call them, which should be studied out and pursued. 

OK, I could be offended I suppose – but instead I choose to view this as a challenge, to FIND OUT.   Working to actually show the BYU guys and others that they are missing something and there IS some real (if “anomalous”) science here.  We certainly have some observations by good scientists  that this is the case.  Perhaps students at BYU and around the world will be allowed to view for themselves, and ponder the evidence in front of them.  It is their world that may be transformed by a game-changing novel energy source.

And so I accept the rejection of my scheduled BYU Colloquium as a challenge:  Can I/we demonstrate conclusively the existence of a new (untapped) source of useful power and energy?   That is the central issue.   


I will be working with colleagues around the globe, such as Professor Jirohta Kasagi of Tohoku University and Dr. Francesco Celani (see photos below, taken at ICCF-18, Univ. of Missouri) and many others including Chet Kremens, Russ Gries, and Mark Vaughn.

As I have repeatedly stated, we are not looking for  “perpetual motion machine” which would be considered “bad science.”  Rather, we are looking for a novel, presently-untapped source of energy - like uranium used to be (before 1900 certainly). We are talking about pursuing an unusual effect that a serious scientist can observe and replicate and study in the laboratory.  We are approaching a light that glows "forever" (BYU faculty will be familiar with the Brother of Jared and his glowing solid-state devices).

I will leave it that – Stay tuned!
« Last Edit: 2017-09-03, 14:11:26 by PhysicsProf »
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 658
I admire your fortitude and perseverance Professor!


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
Could you explain how Earth ground has negative electricity ? It is the main key to understanding free energy.

"My present application is based upon a discovery which I have made that when rays or radiations of the above kind are permitted to fall upon an insulated conducting body connected to one of the terminals of a condenser, while the other terminal of the same is made by independent means to receive or to carry away electricity, a current flows into the condenser so long as the insulated body is exposed to the rays, and under the conditions hereinafter specified an indefinite accumulation of electrical energy in the condenser takes place."

"The second terminal or armature of the condenser may be connected to one of the poles of a battery or other source of electricity or to any conducting body or object whatever of such properties or so conditioned that by its means electricity of the required sign will be supplied to the terminal. A simple way of supplying positive or negative electricity to the terminal is to connect the same either to an insulated conductor, supported at some height in the atmosphere, or to a grounded conductor, the former, as is well known, furnishing positive and the latter negative electricity. "

Tesla patent US 685,958
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
"Could you explain how Earth ground has negative electricity ? It is the main key to understanding free energy."

  Forest, "negative electricity" has not even been mentioned in this thread - and departs TOO FAR from the present topic, and so I would ask that you take your question to a separate thread.  Perhaps start a new thread or find another thread on that topic.
 Thanks.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1556
Quote from: Dr Jones
The Professor's Response:
Quote
“Please don’t play games with me. I will not respond to your two numbered questions.”

Wow... I'm not sure what games he was referring to, since my questions were sincere and straightforward.  But he refused to respond.  Just wow.  Never had a colleague do that to me before, utterly refusing to respond to two straightforward questions.

He's obviously become a very unpleasant man as he
obeys the orders of his Masters.  Their power over the
institutions of academia is a sorry thing to behold.

You're on their 'List' because of your integrity and your
love of truth.  Any who deviate from the 'Official' story
of 9/11 will be the recipients of their wrath.

I agree with Room3327.  Your fortitude and perseverance
are admirable as are your level-head and your humility.


---------------------------
A man gets depressed, he gets sad, he thinks about quitting and folding, but he never does. He pushes through adversity. - Chad Howse
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1088
@PhysicsProf
Quote
Of course, one of the affidavits was by Dr. Harvey Fletcher, a famous physicist with BYU connections, who gave considerable details about the Moray experiment, hardly “anecdotal evidence.”  True, Fletcher could not explain it, but that does not invalidate his carefully recorded observations of the Moray device. And my talk would cover MUCH more than this one example anyway!

I have reviewed all of T.H.moray's work and believe it was credible, moreso concerning the fact the Correa technology is a variation of Morays work. It also took me a few weeks to track down geographically exactly what his "swedish stone" detector was, it was a quite rare form of quartz.
http://www.rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm

I should note the Correa's have decades of what I would call top notch research under their belt. We have to connect the dots here and they mention T.H.Moray by name in their documents. Correa's work is a continuation of Moray's work and I think they have nailed it down fairly well.

AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  Wish there was a "thank you" button - I appreciate your remarks muDped and AC.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3269
Mark Dansie posted this at OU.Com
his Link
http://revolution-green.com/lenr-research-italy/.

he is looking for more info on this from anyone that can share.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  LENR aka geo-fusion remains a viable approach IMO - thanks, Chet.

  I'd like to return to an experiment that I've described before; now working to refine it and accomplish the test..

  Consider the two small pancake coils shown in Fig1 (attached).  We apply a short-pulse current to COIL 1 on the left, such that a north pole emanates to the right (south pole to the left).  

If a permanent magnet were sitting just to the right of the coil 1 as the current flows, with north pole facing the coil, both coil1 and the magnet would be repelled and would move apart (if free to move).  This is in keeping with Newton's 3rd law, with the forces on coil1 and the permanent magnet equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.  They would move apart and momentum would be conserved.  (Indeed, Newton's 3rd Law is basically a re-statement of the law of conservation of momentum.)

But there is no permanent magnet in this experiment.  Instead we have COIL2 a distance L from COIL1 and both are fixed on a platform which platform is free to move.  

Given the finite time for the B field from COIL1 to propagate, it reaches COIL2 at time
t (at 2) = L/c,  where c is the speed of light.

Now as the "magnetic pulse" reaches COIL2 it is energized with north pole to the left, so that its north pole REPELS the incoming north pole "wave" and COIL2 is nudged to the right, and I find that the whole system will then be pushed to the right.  This impulse to the right results in a velocity Vs to the right of the whole system, which as I said is free to move.  

(As coil2 is switched on, coil1 is turned off, so it will not be pushed by the field arriving later from coil2.)

What is the north pole of coil2 pushing against?  I see it as pushing against whatever is carrying the magnetic-field pulse which was generated near COIL1, namely the vacuum.  Thus, the experiment probes the interaction of two magnetic fields, one generated earlier by COIL1 and traveling to the right, and one generated by COIL2 as this B-field arrives, such that COIL2 is pushed to the right.

Question:  Will the system indeed move to the right?  And if so,  is momentum conserved?  Stated in another way, is Newton's 3rd law violated?

Note that if this 2-coil system were mounted on the circumference of a wheel which was free to rotate, the impulse on COIL2 would cause the wheel to rotate, IMO.  And if so, is angular momentum conserved?

Note also that since the speed of light is approximately 1 foot/nanosecond, the trailing edge of the current pulse in COIL1 needs to be very sharp - it should be off (or largely off) in about 2 ns if coil2 is (say) 1 foot away.  This is a technical challenge.  A single loop of wire could be used in each coil.  This would reduce the magnitude of each impulsive push, but then the rep rate could be many times per second.

Note that COIL1 can start ON and coil2 OFF, but COIL1 needs to be turned off sharply (and coil2 on sharply about that same time) - also coil2 can stay on after the pulse arrives, it doesn't much matter as long as COIL1 is turned off sharply.

OK - tear this apart, or show me how momentum is conserved.

  
« Last Edit: 2015-03-19, 19:21:34 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1288
PhysicsProf,

You can make exactly the same argument for two conducting spheres and get an overall force.  I think the answer comes down to  exactly what is an electric or a magnetic field?  Are we dealing with some form of virtual particle emanating from the sphere or coil?  When we have static fields is there a continuous stream of virtual particles coming from the source?  IMO there has to be such particles and they exist everywhere flowing through space.  And they are truly particulate, what we recognize as waves travelling through space are really the result of many particles moving in a certain direction and having a wavelike spatial distribution of one of their parameters, like spin direction wrt travel direction.  Spins transverse to the travel represent transverse waves.  Spins aligned with the travel direction represent longitudinal waves.  You can also have particle number-density distribution along the travel direction giving wave-like properties.  If the emanating particles have an effective energy and momentum, which they can have even though their rest mass is zero, then you have the answer to your question.

What we see as an external force acting on a body (in this case your RH coil) is actually the result of an imbalance in the momentum of these virtual particles.  That imbalance has to take account of all the virtual particles being continually absorbed and emitted, and of course that includes not only those arriving from the nearby previously energized coil, but also those arriving from all directions of the background continuum of space.  Without that nearby coil, your test coil is being battered by that background continuum, but of course that all integrates to zero in such a large object.  But replace that coil with a single spinning electron and that game of ping-pong becomes obvious.  Your nearby coil is supplying the necessary conditions to alter the ping-pong game.

Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  Thanks for your reply, Smudge.  I'd like to pursue this a bit:
Quote
I think the answer comes down to  exactly what is an electric or a magnetic field?


Right... and how does the "vacuum" carry an E or B field?  Scientists used to speak of the ether, now its vacuum - but make no mistake, the vacuum has definite properties such as mu-nought and epsilon-nought; it is NOT "nothingness."

Quote
 Are we dealing with some form of virtual particle emanating from the sphere or coil?  When we have static fields is there a continuous stream of virtual particles coming from the source?  IMO there has to be such particles and they exist everywhere flowing through space.  And they are truly particulate, what we recognize as waves travelling through space are really the result of many particles moving in a certain direction and having a wavelike spatial distribution of one of their parameters, like spin direction wrt travel direction.  Spins transverse to the travel represent transverse waves.  Spins aligned with the travel direction represent longitudinal waves.  You can also have particle number-density distribution along the travel direction giving wave-like properties.

 If the emanating particles have an effective energy and momentum, which they can have even though their rest mass is zero, then you have the answer to your question.
 
  So let's say these particles have an effective momentum.  Then when the LH coil1 is energized, particles carrying momentum are emitted left (carrying south-pole-ness) and right (carrying north-pole-ness)  -- momentum all balances out so far = there is no net force yet, but how do the particles moving right carry "north pole" information?  how do they do that?  (You agree that they somehow do that?)

I'd like to start there, if anyone has any comments.  Then move on to more Q's (below).

  MORE: when this north-pole-field hits the north-pole-field coming from the RH coil2, then there is repulsion, right?
The question remains -- how can it after THIS interaction, that momentum is conserved?? - since the RH coil is pushed to the right by "the north-pole-field" and it seems nothing "real" gets pushed to the left...

  Addendum - finally, I'm an experimenter and I'd like to see whether the mount holding the two coils moves to the right, or not (when free to move).  
« Last Edit: 2015-03-20, 04:34:43 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Physics Prof,

This is a big controversy that's been going on in electrodynamics for more than a hundred years.
Observations of deformations in railguns have been used by Graneau and others to show that the momentum IS conserved. The action of forces is 'as if' all forces interact between the coils or rails.

But the *consensus view* is that the momentum is fully conserved, but part of it is no longer observable because it has been added to the angular momentum of space -- or the swirling of virtual particles, or aether vortices-- and no longer acts on matter. For instance, the attached article describes the hidden momentum thus:

The hero--or is it the villain?-- of this story is hidden momentum.
What can be said about the nature of hidden momentum
in general? It seems to share three general features:
• It is purely mechanical. Although it arises most often in
electromagnetic contexts, it has nothing to do with electrodynamics...
• It occurs in systems with internally moving parts, such as
current loops..
• It is intrinsically relativistic...
A definitive characterization of the phenomenon remains
elusive, and some have suggested that the term should be
expanded to include all strictly relativistic contributions to
momentum including electromagnetic momentum, the
.. piece of particle momentum, and the ... portion
of the momentum density of a fluid under pressure; others
urged that the term be expunged altogether."


So it is an open question. What remains true is that in practical situations like yours, the second coil will tend to move away from the first, if allowed to move. In terms of the way they behave, all forces appear to act upon the rails, and none appear to be 'missing' in space.  But some may *appear* to be missing if the moving coil has too much mechanical inertia and cannot directly move based on the forces. So you would need to use a very lightweight coil, I think.

More power to you in your new experimental phase! I have always been a bookish person, so I've always been a bit envious of people who have experimental skills, and can directly test their theories. It's especially frustrating if you read a lot of really interesting things that nobody is doing anything with.... This is totally megalomania on my part but I fantasize about being Edison in Menlo Park, where he could tell 20 people, "try this out!", and results would be back in a couple of days :-)

orthofield
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2610
  Thank you for your insights, OField.  You mentioned an article
Quote
For instance, the attached article describes the hidden momentum thus:
Quote
It is intrinsically relativistic...
A definitive characterization of the phenomenon remains
elusive, and some have suggested that the term should be
expanded to include all strictly relativistic contributions to
momentum including electromagnetic momentum...

   Interesting stuff, but it appears you neglected to attach the article -- would you do so?  I'd like to read it!

Quote
I fantasize about being Edison in Menlo Park, where he could tell 20 people, "try this out!", and results would be back in a couple of days :-)

   Sigh... I used to have students eager to work with me, both undergrad and graduate, who were like that...  But I was "early retired" from the University (not my desire!) at age 57 in 2007... and yet, there is one "student" who has recently re-joined with me.  I hope that continues!  he's really talented, much smarter than me!

   Below is a conceptual diagram for an E-field comparative experiment using 2 charged plates, in lieu of the 2-coil B-field experiment delineated above.  Again, the 2 plates are mounted on a platform which is free to move.  Not sure yet which is more feasible, in the lab.

 The goal is the same:  to observe apparent non-conservation of momentum.
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Physics Prof,

Here's the article...it is not unlike many others, by such as Richard Feynman...it's more than anything else a good description of the conventional viewpoint.

orthofield
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1288
 Thanks for your reply, Smudge.  I'd like to pursue this a bit:

Right... and how does the "vacuum" carry an E or B field?  Scientists used to speak of the ether, now its vacuum - but make no mistake, the vacuum has definite properties such as mu-nought and epsilon-nought; it is NOT "nothingness."

I absolutely agree.  I fill my space with aether particles.

Quote
 So let's say these particles have an effective momentum.  Then when the LH coil1 is energized, particles carrying momentum are emitted left (carrying south-pole-ness) and right (carrying north-pole-ness)  -- momentum all balances out so far = there is no net force yet, but how do the particles moving right carry "north pole" information?  how do they do that?  (You agree that they somehow do that?)

I don't see them as carrying "north pole information", I see them carrying something that defines a field direction, in this case a field that points in the velocity direction.  Those emitted from the S pole carry something that defines a field that is anti-parallel to the velocity.  The simplest approach to this is to give the aether particles spin, and let that spin define the field direction.  However in my aether I have already used spin to define the E field so I cannot use it for the B field.  My B field definition is more complex and involves the fact that the field comes from moving electrons.  So it involves the E field particles with their spin defining the E field direction.  We have particles emitted from the electons in the LH copper coil and they arrive at the RH coil with their spins pointing backwards.  But the copper coil is electically neutral so we also have particles arriving from the positive nuclei with their spins pointing forward.  Net result is a zero E field but zero does not mean zero particles, they are definititely there.  Now the electrons are moving, they have velocity, so the particles arriving from them are slightly different from those arriving from the static nuclei.  The E field particles from the moving electrons now have their spins slightly misaligned with the velocity vector.  When you look into it you find that the misaligment angle is v/c radians where v is the electron velocity. And you find that those particles define a very slight transverse E field, the overall pattern of the many particles coming from the coil electrons define a sort of E field vortex.  It is the CW or CCW rotation of that vortex relative to the velocity direction that defines the direction of the B field

Quote
I'd like to start there, if anyone has any comments.  Then move on to more Q's (below).

  MORE: when this north-pole-field hits the north-pole-field coming from the RH coil2, then there is repulsion, right?
The question remains -- how can it after THIS interaction, that momentum is conserved?? - since the RH coil is pushed to the right by "the north-pole-field" and it seems nothing "real" gets pushed to the left.

In any aether theory you cannot just consider the emanating particles travelling from A to B, you must also consider the enormous background continuum of aether particles arriving at A and B, playing their game of ping-pong with A and B.  Then is is possible that the particles emitted from A and arriving at B somehow modify the effects of the background.  Lets take a background continuum of say transverse particles, they all have their spins transverse to their velocity direction and they arrive at B equally from all directions and with random transverse spin directions.  The net effect is zero force on B.  But tht is while A is not present.  Now let us suddenly put A in place.  It gets particles arriving mostly from all directions but those that would have passed through B actually get absorbed by B then re-emitted, and if B is an electron the emitted particles are no longer transverse, their spins are all longitudinal.  So A gets something different from the B direction and that upsets the neutral balance at A.  Depending on what B is, positron or electron, B will now endure a force in a given direction but that force can be the considered as a modification of the background neutrality.

 
Quote
 Addendum - finally, I'm an experimenter and I'd like to see whether the mount holding the two coils moves to the right, or not (when free to move).  


I think it will.

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


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-12-10, 10:21:22