PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-07-07, 19:20:40
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Author Topic: Marinov Generator  (Read 28649 times)

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2614
Thank you G for that pdf :)

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
My thanks also for that interesting paper.  I can see me studying it closely over the next few days.

Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
I find that I already had that, downloaded it 12 months ago but hadn't got round to studying it.  His equation (5.11) is correctly derived in the manner he describes.  He acknowledges that only one component is familiar as the q(vXB) force but fails to point out that his derivation only gives half the value.   So it's not quite right as are other author's papers that just used the identity (5.7) to derive their equations.  I think his Final Words are worth putting here, since it sums up just what this forum is about.
Smudge

FINAL WORDS
To the reader who feels a subtle sense of intuition having been stirred up, I encourage
you to investigate further. Our intuition can be said to be paradoxical, since it
is telling us that “we might know more than we think we know”. Even though
the development of science is most often put forth as having been steady linear
step-by-step progression, original ideas often come by conceptual leaps of intuition.
In order to be able to learn, we must admit that we do not know nor understand.
The one who knows and understands everything has nothing to learn. All to often
in the history of science and other fields, have humans carried invalid assumptions
between generations. Until something is discovered or invented, it remains hidden
and might as well be non-existent. Though the path to discovery may be complex
and difficult, the gained knowledge can turn out to be obvious in hindsight, leaving
one to wonder why no one thought of it before. On the other hand, highly original
work is most often with a complete lack of understanding and said to be ahead of
its time, since it can take half a century or more for the community to catch up.
Progress is thus also a matter of timing, with the right ideas being put forth and
appreciated at the right time. With the great accessibility to both education and
scientific literature in modern day and age, along with rapid progress in many areas
of science, it looks as if the time is ripe for a new paradigm. The author’s hope has
been that by thinking in terms of the magnetic vector potential, a shift in focus
might come by, leading to a fruitful approach. Mankind is now in desperate need
of new solutions in transportation and energy in order to become independent of
fossil fuels. Even though there are many who have financial interest in the way this
branch of science will develop, research will still, first and foremost, be driven by the
spark of curiosity igniting the wonderful guiding force of inspiration.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
...
FINAL WORDS
...“we might know more than we think we know”
...

Not bad!  :)

I downloaded this paper last year when it came out, put it in a folder to read later, and then forgot about it!  :(
Thanks to Grumpy for putting this valuable link.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
Hi Smudge,

I am glad to see that we have made progress. You answered my objection to the question of the different referentials. A is indeed that from the observer's frame of reference, but the gradient of A in space creates a real electric field seen in the frame of reference of the charge (in the same way as E = VxB when using B).
My previous proposal to prove the concept of mechanical force by virtue of the potential vector should therefore work.

However, the question of the divergence by a factor of 2 between the two methods remains to be resolved. Have you made any progress on this? None on my side!


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
Hi Smudge,

I am glad to see that we have made progress. You answered my objection to the question of the different referentials. A is indeed that from the observer's frame of reference, but the gradient of A in space creates a real electric field seen in the frame of reference of the charge (in the same way as E = VxB when using B).
My previous proposal to prove the concept of mechanical force by virtue of the potential vector should therefore work.
As should the Marinov generator.  That the Marinov generator can create induction along the velocity vector is possibly a bonus whereas the Faraday disc and your proposal create a sideways force.

Quote
However, the question of the divergence by a factor of 2 between the two methods remains to be resolved. Have you made any progress on this? None on my side!
Only the realization that the convective operator by itself is not sufficient to describe motional induction within a B field.  The jury is still out for the non B field.  I am tempted to go back to basics and describe all fields as some sort of interaction of the test particle with the so called virtual particles of space, what I consider to be sub-photons.  Then it might be obvious how the test particle gets its sideways force from that sideways gradient of the A field without actually moving through that gradient.

Smudge
Edit to final sentence.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
...
Only the realization that the convective operator by itself is not sufficient to describe motional induction within a B field.  The jury is still out for the non B field.  I am tempted to go back to basics and describe all fields as some sort of interaction of the test particle with the so called virtual particles of space, what I consider to be sub-photons.  Then it might be obvious how the test particle gets its sideways force from that sideways gradient of the A field without actually moving through that gradient.

Smudge
Edit to final sentence.

Using the potentials or the fields to deal with electromagnetism must give the same results, question of math related to the way these concepts are defined. So I think there is something we missed in the equations, not in the underlying physics.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
@F6,

I found this paper by Puthoff buried in my computer.  I think he must have sent it to me way back when we were in contact with each other, as it was in MS Word format.  Interesting that for the long solenoid this alternative approach to EM energy density yields half the magnetostatic energy outside the solenoid where B = 0.

The bad thing is his statement "With regard to applications we first note by Eqns. (9) and (10) that power flux
(and associated momentum transfer) depend on time derivatives ..... and therefore do not attribute momentum transfer to static field distributions."  I take it that his momentum transfer means a force.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
@Smudge

I understand that since there is no momentum in a static field, you cannot transfert the momentum from one field to another or remove it (so you can't get energy from it). That is what we are observing. But you can have a force without momentum or energy, so for me a force is compatible with a static field. That being said, I don't see very well in practice what it would be.

I was interested in Puthoff a few years ago because of that: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909037
He tried to give as a physical explanation for the gravity, the change in permeability and permitivity of the vacuum.
This idea was invalidated by more competent people than him. It took me a while to understand why, because at the time I didn't understand relativity well.
In fact, gravity does not change the rhythm of the clocks, but the difference in gravitational potential between two clocks makes them beat at a different rate. It is the gravitational potential, not the field, that is used in the GR equations. This implies an effect that cannot be reduced to physical conditions at the position of the clock. It is surprising that Puthoff was wrong there, whereas this example also shows that the potentials are more fundamental than the fields, which is what Puthoff thinks in the case of electromagnetism.

I agree with what Puthoff says in your paper, in particular with his choice of the Lorentz gauge, by far the most "physical", although I consider him to be a generally very questionable author, not only for this paper I have just quoted, but also because he signed the report on the charlatan Uri Geller affirming his psychic powers of telekinesis, after his evaluation at the Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s. In short, this author may be interesting but he is not reliable.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
I was interested in Puthoff a few years ago because of that: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909037
He tried to give as a physical explanation for the gravity, the change in permeability and permitivity of the vacuum.
This idea was invalidated by more competent people than him.
Can you give a link to those please.
Quote
It took me a while to understand why, because at the time I didn't understand relativity well.
In fact, gravity does not change the rhythm of the clocks, but the difference in gravitational potential between two clocks makes them beat at a different rate.
And Puthoff says just that immediately after equation (11).   As I read it his PV approach is just another way of looking at GR and it gives results that agree with measurements to first order, as do other approaches.
Quote
It is the gravitational potential, not the field, that is used in the GR equations.  This implies an effect that cannot be reduced to physical conditions at the position of the clock. It is surprising that Puthoff was wrong there
Wrong in what way?  He acknowledges the role of the potentials.  Isn't the gravitational potential at the position of the clock a "physical condition"?
Quote
I agree with what Puthoff says in your paper, in particular with his choice of the Lorentz gauge, by far the most "physical", although I consider him to be a generally very questionable author, not only for this paper I have just quoted, but also because he signed the report on the charlatan Uri Geller affirming his psychic powers of telekinesis, after his evaluation at the Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s. In short, this author may be interesting but he is not reliable.
That may be your view but it is not mine.
Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
Can you give a link to those please.
Puthoff took up an idea of Dicke's from 1957.

"The claims have not been accepted in mainstream physics.
[...]
Mainstream physicists agree that PV is

not viable as a unification of gravitation and electromagnetism
not a "reformulation" of general relativity,
not a viable theory of gravitation, since it violates observational and theoretical requirements."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizable_vacuum

See wikipedia references for reviews of PV, especially Ibizon.
"The theory predicts a radiation power from a binary system that is 2/3 that predicted by GR, and so incompatible with observed orbital decay rate of PSR 1913+16."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302273

Quote
And Puthoff says just that immediately after equation (11).   
Exact, I missed that. But it doesn't change the substance, see below.

Quote
As I read it his PV approach is just another way of looking at GR and it gives results that agree with measurements to first order, as do other approaches.Wrong in what way?  He acknowledges the role of the potentials.  Isn't the gravitational potential at the position of the clock a "physical condition"?That may be your view but it is not mine.
Smudge

The twin paradox is solved not only by special relativity, but also by general relativity. In this case the twin who turns around is subjected to centripetal acceleration, and by the principle of acceleration/gravity equivalence, its clock is seen by the twin at rest in the same way as if it were subjected to the same gravity value as the acceleration. Thus the difference in "gravitational" potential between the two will determine the clocks time lag.
How does Puthoff explain this case, and the compatibility of PV with the principle of equivalence in general?



« Last Edit: 2019-05-27, 07:52:54 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
See wikipedia references for reviews of PV, especially Ibizon.
"The theory predicts a radiation power from a binary system that is 2/3 that predicted by GR, and so incompatible with observed orbital decay rate of PSR 1913+16."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302273
So Puthoff employs Ibison to create a critique of the PV cosmology and that makes Puthoff "not reliable" (Your words).
Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
Puthoff's Earthtech organisation should be congratulated for their diligent investigations into excess energy claims
https://earthtech.org/excess-energy-claims/
And this man Puthoff is "not reliable"?
Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
So Puthoff employs Ibison to create a critique of the PV cosmology and that makes Puthoff "not reliable" (Your words).
Smudge

It is only one of several elements. You missed the fact that I made it clear, that he was completely fooled by a magician and asserted a psychic power of telekinesis in Uri Geller, who turned out to be a charlatan. It is a symptom of those who absolutely want to see in reality, what they dream.

An alternative theory is only needed if it models observations that were not, if it can predict new things, or if it synthesizes several theories into a simpler and more comprehensive theory.

What new things does Puthoff predict that we could experimentally verify or that would not be yet explained by conventional theories?


Puthoff's Earthtech organisation should be congratulated for their diligent investigations into excess energy claims
https://earthtech.org/excess-energy-claims/
And this man Puthoff is "not reliable"?
Smudge

Again: they say their mission is "Shaping the future by innovating breakthroughs", where is their "breakthrough" technology? Have they at least an experimental proof of a new concept?






---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3661


Buy me some coffee
I like Tinman's idea for using a plastic food bowl for a quick budget experiment.  His idea of using two horseshoe magnets should work OK but of course the output is low voltage DC.  I think an AC experiment is worthwhile because if this really works and is OU then it will need AC generation.  This is easily achieved by using a soft ferromagnetic ring core driven with AC.  Many of you will have small ring cores that would fit into a plastic drinking glass, so that could be a route to a budget experiment, see images below.  And you will have oscilloscopes that can easily measure low voltage AC to compare with the input.  If it works there should be low voltage AC output that is independent of frequency, in phase with the input current and proportional to rotation speed.  If that is achieved it shows there to be an unusual form of induction that could be OU in that output energy is not derived from the input to the coil, but comes from whatever space energy keeps electrons perpetually spinning and orbiting.  Anyone up for this?
Smudge

Well i took the time tonight to build and run the experiment,which i always intended to do when i got some free time. But upon coming back here and re-reading the experiment parameters,it would seem i screwed it up a bit.

I used just an open rod magnet,where north was facing one brush,and south was facing the other brush.
So in my experiment,the magnetic field was not looped,it was open.

I will post the video here,as i have already uploaded it.
Although it may work like a homopolar generator,it is still quite surprising to see a voltage across the shorted ring.
With a homopolar generator,we have one brush on the inner axis,and one on the outer circumference.
But with this setup,we have both brushes around the circumference.

I will replace the PM with a toroid tomorrow,run AC through it,and see if we get a voltage that way.
As the voltage is very low now with the fields cutting the conductor,i have my doubts that a voltage will be produced when those fields are contained within the toroid--but we will see tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fu2cYlTcvg


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
Thank you Brad for your interest in this.  With normal "flux cutting" the induction is at right angles to the movement, but here the induction is along the movement.  That in itself is different from what is normally accepted motional induction.  I look forward to your results with a toroidal core.  You will probably need to drive the toroid to its saturation limit to get maximum core flux.  If I am right, with AC in the toroid and no movement you should get zero voltage.  But with the slip-ring rotating you should get a small AC induction which is proportional to the RPM.  Of course that small voltage can be stepped up using a transformer so that it gets to a useful level.  And that might allow some power measurements looking for signs of OU.  Interesting times ahead possibly.
Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
Hi Brad,

A slight magnetic field gradient possibly exists along the cylinder between the two sliding contacts and explains the voltage. I think the reason for your voltage should be the same as mine here where this effect is enhanced by the asymmetry of the field along the cylinder: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3738.0

By moving the position of one of your contacts a little along the cylinder, towards or away from the motor, the voltage should drop to zero. Could you check this hypothesis?

In any case, the magnetic flux is always looped through the air, between the poles of the magnet.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3661


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

A slight magnetic field gradient possibly exists along the cylinder between the two sliding contacts and explains the voltage. I think the reason for your voltage should be the same as mine here where this effect is enhanced by the asymmetry of the field along the cylinder: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3738.0

By moving the position of one of your contacts a little along the cylinder, towards or away from the motor, the voltage should drop to zero. Could you check this hypothesis?

In any case, the magnetic flux is always looped through the air, between the poles of the magnet.

Ok,so i have this right--
Leave one brush as is,and move the other either toward the front of the drum,or to the rear of the drum,which would mean back toward the motor in the later.
So we are sliding the brush across the width of the drum--correct?.

I will give it a shot tomorrow  O0


 Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
...
Leave one brush as is,and move the other either toward the front of the drum,or to the rear of the drum,which would mean back toward the motor in the later.
So we are sliding the brush across the width of the drum--correct?.
...

That's right, that's the idea.
In my opinion, it is the distance along the drum between the two circumferences determined by the sliding contacts which are not perfectly aligned, linked to a magnetic field gradient, that makes the voltage.
So if you could also make the sliding contacts sharper, more punctual, it would be better, otherwise the wide surface makes it unclear by which point (or points) the current really escapes from the width of the drum to the contacts.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3661


Buy me some coffee
That's right, that's the idea.
In my opinion, it is the distance along the drum between the two circumferences determined by the sliding contacts which are not perfectly aligned, linked to a magnetic field gradient, that makes the voltage.
So if you could also make the sliding contacts sharper, more punctual, it would be better, otherwise the wide surface makes it unclear by which point (or points) the current really escapes from the width of the drum to the contacts.

I ran the test.
I put the edge of 1 brush on the inner edge of the drum,and the edge of the other brush on the outer edge of the drum.
This resulted in a much higher voltage being produced across the brushes,some of which could be attributed to a slightly higher RPM due to less brush friction.

I will post the video later on tonight.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621

There are classic drum HPGs, I mean where the current is caught between the center of the axis and the periphery of the drum, capable of producing hundreds of amperes. In these devices, the external contact is made by a multitude of electrodes connected together, in contact with the drum all around.
If current were to flow significantly between these sliding peripheral contacts, which your setup suggests, I think it would have been seen, it would cause significant losses. That's why I don't believe too much in a current generated along the circumference. Beware of possible artifacts, you have to be very careful.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3661


Buy me some coffee
There are classic drum HPGs, I mean where the current is caught between the center of the axis and the periphery of the drum, capable of producing hundreds of amperes. In these devices, the external contact is made by a multitude of electrodes connected together, in contact with the drum all around.
If current were to flow significantly between these sliding peripheral contacts, which your setup suggests, I think it would have been seen, it would cause significant losses. That's why I don't believe too much in a current generated along the circumference. Beware of possible artifacts, you have to be very careful.

If we had the scope just across the brushes,and there was no cap,then i would agree that artifacts could be a possibility. But as we have a 35uF cap across the brushes,and the scope is across the cap,i would think that a voltage built up across that cap would mean a current flow to that cap. And once the motor is stopped,the cap is bled down,and then recharged with the opposite polarity when the motor is started in the opposite direction,or by flipping the magnet poles around on the fly.

There are losses here at play though,and they are of course eddy current losses,as the copper ring gets hot after a short time of spinning.

The current is also very low (with my setup at least),where a 100 ohm resistor across the cap will reduce the voltage by half. But even so,i am surprised there is any at all.
It is without doubt very inefficient,as most of the motors energy is converted to heat through eddy currents in the copper ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCA01hzLYOE


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
I don't buy into F6's electrons dragged through a magnetic gradient.  They would have to be spin polarized and in Cu they are not.  Collisions with the atoms ensures that can't happen.  If the slip-ring were ferromagnetic then that would be a different ball game.

I am still hooked on movement through the magnetic vector potential A field as a possibility.  This A field forms concentric rings around the magnet axis.  I would like to offer a slightly different experiment if Brad is willing to continue.  Remove the magnet from inside the slip-ring and hold magnets near.  One that interests me is shown in the attached image.  For this you need a long bar magnet, perhaps put two or three smaller ones together end to end.  The magnet center needs to be as close as possible to the brush contacts.  The eddy current problem should be reduced because with long magnets there is virtually zero B field close to the middle section.  If you still get induced voltage then I think that is fairly strong evidence for this A field effect.   And I think it will not work as a motor so that non-reciprocity bodes well for this offering the potential for OU operation.  If Brad does get induction I think he can claim a world's first for a definitive experiment of this kind.
Smudge 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3661


Buy me some coffee
I don't buy into F6's electrons dragged through a magnetic gradient.  They would have to be spin polarized and in Cu they are not.  Collisions with the atoms ensures that can't happen.  If the slip-ring were ferromagnetic then that would be a different ball game.

I am still hooked on movement through the magnetic vector potential A field as a possibility.  This A field forms concentric rings around the magnet axis.  I would like to offer a slightly different experiment if Brad is willing to continue.  Remove the magnet from inside the slip-ring and hold magnets near.  One that interests me is shown in the attached image.  For this you need a long bar magnet, perhaps put two or three smaller ones together end to end.  The magnet center needs to be as close as possible to the brush contacts.  The eddy current problem should be reduced because with long magnets there is virtually zero B field close to the middle section.  If you still get induced voltage then I think that is fairly strong evidence for this A field effect.   And I think it will not work as a motor so that non-reciprocity bodes well for this offering the potential for OU operation.  If Brad does get induction I think he can claim a world's first for a definitive experiment of this kind.
Smudge

Just so happens that i have brand new long neo bar magnets that will do the trick.

I'll put on my jumper,and head on out to the workshop now,and give it a try

Back soon.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
Just so happens that i have brand new long neo bar magnets that will do the trick.

I'll put on my jumper,and head on out to the workshop now,and give it a try

Back soon.

Bright idea! Especially if you pick the current right in the middle.

If you have a long bar magnet, you could also try this:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2470.msg74662#msg74662 (if there is a voltage, this would be the first experimental evidence of a HPG with the rotating conductor outside the magnetic field).



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-07-07, 19:20:40