PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-02-19, 17:56:34
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Some "New" Observations  (Read 215031 times)

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
But does it do that?



Hi verpies,
It is the conclusion I came to with this device.  Am I correct? I don't know, all I do know is my experience and knowledge led me to that conclusion.  I think a few hours playing with a hole in a piece of ferrous material and a wire through it, will probably lead you to the same conclusion. I don't profess to be the smartest man on earth, I know what I know and I know how much I don't know, but I try to only talk about things I do know and leave the rest to others.


I wish a speedy recovery for ION and groundloop, I've had my own problems in the last several years so you are both high on my sympathy list!

Room   


---------------------------
"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
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 56
The iron wire is a toroid a coil of insulated iron wire which serves as the magnetic core and a generating coil for recharge of the input (no direct output to input), this is an unusual twist to looping

The L1 to L4 are 4 coils in bucking mode to one another. Not shown on the sch: because it is difficult to draw, is that L1 is opposite to L2 and L3 is opposite to L4 on the toroid. As explained by a member here, this will give the flux a circular rotation around the iron core. The cap C1 (400v) creates a parametric oscillation by powering the coils in the switch off time, so inducing multiple frequencies by heterodyning. C2 and C3 supply the biasing and need to be HV of around 400v or C2 will blow, as I have found one day when that happened using only 100v caps, even at 400v C2 can get warm.

It is very important that the diodes D1 and D2 are ultra fast for the frequency band that we are working in, they have to be able to block the return path so as the system pumps itself up, so to say, by the adding of same frequencies generated within the system.

This toroid when running will vibrate if the frequency band is low, it will also in time heat up if the iron coil is loosly wound.

The output ferrite toroid is to isolate the output, as the primary of that toroid is part of the parametric oscillator and important that it should be within the magnetic field of the main iron toroid (that I can't explain why, but I presume it is the interaction of the magnetic fields).

I have re-posted below the spectrum shot, it is important to note the power levels due to same frequency addition, it is like two power supplies of 12v @ 10amps in parallel will give you 12v @ 20amps as an example.

Regards

Mike 8)
Great post, Mike! Thank you for your generosity in sharing it (along with the preceding schematic). 
Bob
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 113
Exactly
And this is how the RT works-no back torque when power is drawn from the stator coil.
many have replicated this effect,but !! no one!! has been able to explain as to why.

Am i the only one that can explain the effect taking place here?
Will the guru's step up to the plate,and have a stab at it?.

In my opinion, part of the reason why no one can explain to your satisfaction, "why" the effect takes place is because they are preoccupied with your instruction of "replicate the effect".  You may have implied that the replicator attempt to come to some conclusion as to why the effect manifests, however, you failed to convey the message to the replicator that his/her explanation of how and or why the effect manifests was just as important to you as a successful reproduction of the effect. 

What higher purpose does it serve to tell you what you want to hear?  What does it profit myself or the next replicator to tell you something which is not in line with your thinking?  Wouldn't it make more since and possibly be more profitable to all if those who choose to participate come to their own conclusion? Whether this, their conclusion, is in line with yours or is supported by the firmly established is immaterial.  What matters is that they were able to reproduce the desired effect, and have the ability to study it at their leisure and at a speed which is dictated by their desire to know, and their ability to apply what they know in a "practical" manner.  I am of the opinion that we spend way too much time trying to prove things that we aren't justified and or qualified to prove, and at the end of it all, if history has shown us anything, it has shown us that a simple change in perspective generally leads to all previously held notions being superseded.

All that to say this, I have much respect for what you have presented over the years.  I think its time we move away from the idea that we need to defend and or prove anything to anyone.  How you view the operation of your machine is how you view it, how others view it should be of no interest to you, unless you consider their view superior to your own.  We have been talking around this topic for a few years now, and it is very unfortunate that the need to prove ones case and or set records straight has caused the creative energies which brought the innovation to the light of day to stagnate.  You inspired many to investigate, it is your responsibility to keep them inspired to investigate along these lines.  It is you who should be sharing how you think the effect manifests, and why you think this.  It would be nice if you could do so without heavy reference to books containing laws you didn't author.  We call ourselves researchers, if the need arises to reference the books, we can be referred to the specific topics, your impressions are what matter.

As I have mentioned before, your research parallels mine, or vice versa.  I therefore have an hypothesis as to what is happening, and  have machines built which help me to qualify that hypothesis.  This  however, is your presentation, your disclosure, it is therefore your duty to lead so that others can and more than likely will.......follow.

The ball is in your court Sir.  You started this, now if it be your will, lead those who have an interest to its end, or ......allow the topic to fade from memory, and be added to the archives as all topics which have a dramatic beginning eventually do.


Regards
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2950


Buy me some coffee
In my opinion, part of the reason why no one can explain to your satisfaction, "why" the effect takes place is because they are preoccupied with your instruction of "replicate the effect".  You may have implied that the replicator attempt to come to some conclusion as to why the effect manifests, however, you failed to convey the message to the replicator that his/her explanation of how and or why the effect manifests was just as important to you as a successful reproduction of the effect. 

What higher purpose does it serve to tell you what you want to hear?  What does it profit myself or the next replicator to tell you something which is not in line with your thinking?  Wouldn't it make more since and possibly be more profitable to all if those who choose to participate come to their own conclusion? Whether this, their conclusion, is in line with yours or is supported by the firmly established is immaterial.  What matters is that they were able to reproduce the desired effect, and have the ability to study it at their leisure and at a speed which is dictated by their desire to know, and their ability to apply what they know in a "practical" manner.  I am of the opinion that we spend way too much time trying to prove things that we aren't justified and or qualified to prove, and at the end of it all, if history has shown us anything, it has shown us that a simple change in perspective generally leads to all previously held notions being superseded.

All that to say this, I have much respect for what you have presented over the years.  I think its time we move away from the idea that we need to defend and or prove anything to anyone.  How you view the operation of your machine is how you view it, how others view it should be of no interest to you, unless you consider their view superior to your own.  We have been talking around this topic for a few years now, and it is very unfortunate that the need to prove ones case and or set records straight has caused the creative energies which brought the innovation to the light of day to stagnate.  You inspired many to investigate, it is your responsibility to keep them inspired to investigate along these lines.  It is you who should be sharing how you think the effect manifests, and why you think this.  It would be nice if you could do so without heavy reference to books containing laws you didn't author.  We call ourselves researchers, if the need arises to reference the books, we can be referred to the specific topics, your impressions are what matter.

As I have mentioned before, your research parallels mine, or vice versa.  I therefore have an hypothesis as to what is happening, and  have machines built which help me to qualify that hypothesis.  This  however, is your presentation, your disclosure, it is therefore your duty to lead so that others can and more than likely will.......follow.

The ball is in your court Sir.  You started this, now if it be your will, lead those who have an interest to its end, or ......allow the topic to fade from memory, and be added to the archives as all topics which have a dramatic beginning eventually do.


Regards

There have been many who have replicated the effect,but none that know what that effect actually is.
There is not much point in building something if you dont know how or why it work's. There also comes a time when all the thinking is not done for you,and you have to think for your self.

The fact is,it really is not that hard to work out how or why it is doing what it dose.
Im happy to help those that are willing to help them selves,but that just dose not seem to be the case here. Sure,many are willing to build the device,as long as i provide every working detail. This is much like going to school on the assumption that the teacher will learn for you,and will answer all the questions in the tests that are presented to you.

Maybe you could have a stab at it Erfinder?.
I mean,you seem to have great knowledge in this area,and are able to think for your self.
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.

We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.

!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!!  O0  <----Not yelling here,just highlighting  :)


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

Posts: 113
There have been many who have replicated the effect,but none that know what that effect actually is.
There is not much point in building something if you dont know how or why it work's. There also comes a time when all the thinking is not done for you,and you have to think for your self.

The fact is,it really is not that hard to work out how or why it is doing what it dose.
Im happy to help those that are willing to help them selves,but that just dose not seem to be the case here. Sure,many are willing to build the device,as long as i provide every working detail. This is much like going to school on the assumption that the teacher will learn for you,and will answer all the questions in the tests that are presented to you.

Maybe you could have a stab at it Erfinder?.
I mean,you seem to have great knowledge in this area,and are able to think for your self.
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.

We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.

!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!!  O0  <----Not yelling here,just highlighting  :)

Hello Tinman,

I can appreciate what you are saying regarding folks just copying and pasting and putting little or no thought into the project. The problem is Tinman, in their defense, they aren't being motivated to probe the issue, they aren't asked to formulate their own opinions regarding what may be taking place.  If and when they are asked or it is suggested that they do their own thinking, when they share their thoughts, it is found that their thinking is not in line with the thinking of originator of the concepts.....I am sure you can appreciate how this is a conflict generating mechanism.  This is your show, you must lead, you cannot ask folks to think for themselves and for those thoughts to be in line with yours.  We are not here to learn as we do in school, we are here to "consider" the thoughts and ideas presented by like minded individuals.  For you to use the example of the classroom environment, you elevate yourself to the position of instructor, from this altitude you are no longer a peer, it is my hope that you can see the conflict of interest here.  From what I gather, the community is slowly but surely throwing in the towel.  If that was the desired result then I sincerely congratulate you.  If it is not the desired result, then you sir have work to do.  The question and answer period can only begin when you've completed your presentation.  From what I read, and from my own experience, I conclude that you have not.  As you stated and agree with you 100%:

It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.

You have worked it out, now open the door.

As far as my taking a stab at it goes, I have nothing to prove, and find that I am completely satisfied with my understanding of how the effect manifests, and more importantly, I am making strides in my effort to apply the principles constructively.  I have my own understanding of whats happening, and have demonstrated a few things to a few individuals.  One of my goals was to show that the effect is not limited to apparatus which have been and are being discussed on this platform.

You have made a few demonstrations, none of them disclose what you think is happening and more importantly why you think its happening.  Everyone here can read, folks don't need a lesson from textbooks that they can source and study themselves.  Folks are here to partake in the creative expression of like minded researchers.  You started by providing folks with an image of what you were thinking, this evolved into a working concept, you advanced it to levels that no one had contemplated.  You made connections that the majority could not and would not make.  As I stated before and am repeating now, this is your show, its not about folks figuring out what you have found its about you sharing it with them because you can.  

I appreciate you whether you step up and finish what you started or not.  

We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

Your description of the interaction between the approaching, and receding magnet and its influence on the generator coil reveals nothing about your understanding of how your system is able to get around the fundamental issue.  We are well aware of the laws which govern braking action.  We don't need to be reminded of these laws if said reminder isn't accompanied by a solution, or in your case, we dont need to be reminded of what we already know unless you are willing to reveal that which we do not.  


Regards
« Last Edit: 2015-10-11, 11:40:21 by Erfinder »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2756
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.

!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!!  O0  <----Not yelling here,just highlighting  :)
Pre-bias the stator coil with the appropriate magnetic field so that the approaching rotor field decreases the field. The opposite to what would happen if the pre-bias wasn't present.


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2950


Buy me some coffee
Hello Tinman,
  

I appreciate you whether you step up and finish what you started or not.  

Your description of the interaction between the approaching, and receding magnet and its influence on the generator coil reveals nothing about your understanding of how your system is able to get around the fundamental issue.  We are well aware of the laws which govern braking action.  We don't need to be reminded of these laws if said reminder isn't accompanied by a solution, or in your case, we dont need to be reminded of what we already know unless you are willing to reveal that which we do not.  


Regards

Well i placed the answer in capital letters,and highlighted in red.
You simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator(generating)coil,and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the the stator coil. This way ,the stator coil(inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching,and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason i made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical.

So far those that have seen the effect,have seen the increasing field strength of the leaving field by using the diode so as the stator coil only conducts when the current flows in the correct direction.The segment of the rotor must be switched on at TDC of the stator core/coil.When it dose,the diode allows the stator coil to produce a current flow,and at the same time it builds a magnetic field that apposes that of the rotors field. This causes the rotor segment that is carrying that field to be pushed away-the motoring effect. We are not changing any laws of physics,we are simply reversing the action of that of a normal generator-decrease the field strength as that field approaches the generating coil,and increase the field strength as that field is leaving the generator coil.


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

Posts: 113
Well i placed the answer in capital letters,and highlighted in red.
You simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator(generating)coil,and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the the stator coil. This way ,the stator coil(inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching,and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason i made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical.

I understand what you are suggesting, the problem is, you say that one:

"simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator (generating coil....)"

however, you don't show how you are accomplishing this in your basic demonstrations of the RT,  before you started advancing the concept.  The only thing folks witnessed was that a short was made on one of the stator coils, without the diode, with the diode in the incorrect direction, and with the diode in the correct direction. The basics are missing.  From here we move to the second part of your statement where you say:  

"and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the stator coil."  

The majority are left to assume that this latter part has something to do with the diode they were instructed to add.  Much was demonstrated, but there is no clear description of what was shown, and why it was shown, simply put....purpose and method are lacking.  

Then we are faced with your finial statement:

"This way, the stator coil (inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching, and approaching when it is leaving.  This is the very reason I Made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical."

I completely understand whats being suggested here, however, the mechanism through which this is to be accomplished is missing.  You mentioned that you made folks aware of the significance of timing, and where this is an important factor, it is not the factor in question which makes that which you suggest a reality.  You reference the relation between the inducing and induced fields, but make no reference to the geometry of either and specifically the role of geometry has in generating the effect.  In my opinion and experience, it is the geometry which facilities the production of the effect, timing is secondary.  Timing is an issue here because of how these motors are designed and operated, here the term operated is a reference to how and when they are switched.

Myself and many others who do follow with an open mind, were/are of the understanding that this device was an advance on the principles demonstrated in the L.A.G.  We understood that the RT was a demonstration of how the principles and concepts demonstrated in the aforenamed could be applied to existing technology.   So far, it seems all that was promising in the L.A.G. is missing here.

So far those that have seen the effect,have seen the increasing field strength of the leaving field by using the diode so as the stator coil only conducts when the current flows in the correct direction.The segment of the rotor must be switched on at TDC of the stator core/coil.When it dose,the diode allows the stator coil to produce a current flow,and at the same time it builds a magnetic field that apposes that of the rotors field. This causes the rotor segment that is carrying that field to be pushed away-the motoring effect. We are not changing any laws of physics,we are simply reversing the action of that of a normal generator-decrease the field strength as that field approaches the generating coil,and increase the field strength as that field is leaving the generator coil.

As I understand how these motors work, the main reason why the rotor rotates is because of the quadrature relationship shared between the armature and stator fields.  In this specific and or particular embodiment, (the RT) it is of little consequence that the stator is not energized, the stator is under the influence of the armature field and as such there will still be a quadrature relationship between the two, thus we experience rotation in the absence of an "energized" stator.  

In regards to the generator action, as mentioned before there is a quadrature relation between the armature and stator fields.  The armature field is configured and energized in a manner which results in a unidirectional field, this unidirectional field induces a unidirectional field into the stator via the inductive relations between the energized armature and the iron in the stator.  Had the RT had been built using a pulse motor instead of a modified universal motor, it would have been as clear as the nose on a face that the induced wave appears as if it is rectified.  One would have observed that the wave is asymmetric, it would have been observed that the polarity of the wave was directly related to the direction that the rotor is rotated in.  This latter is not applicable to the RT, owing to how it is switched, and other factors, it can only operate in one direction effectively.  When one considers the polarity of the wave, and the fact that it is asymmetrical, it becomes self explanatory what happens when a diode properly oriented is added to the already asymmetrical, magnetically rectified waveform.

This is what I wanted to hear from you.....I never heard it.  I wasn't looking for you to tell me to look into the books to reexamine the laws, nor was I nor am I interested in numbers.  I wanted you to share your view of how you see your machine functioning, nothing more nothing less.  Now it doesn't really matter to me whether you do or not.  But it does matter to a few here, and you owe it to yourself and to them to finish what you started, and to do so in manner that allows them to be able to sit at the bench with you as you walk them through your thinking.  Its not about proving anything, or even about giving anyone anything, its about you sharing your impressions......or not.


Regards
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
I wonder if I can put this junk to good use?  Seems to be an old radio from the bygone era.  I don't know how long the tubes last or if they are any good, but I'm really curious about the aluminum cans and what's inside.   I think it's a tuned radio frequency type because of the ganged variable capacitors.

EM

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1298
The square cans are inductors, usually tunable by turning screws through the holes on top, moving ferrite cores up and down inside coils. The round cans are electrolytic capacitors, almost certainly bad by now, except for the black round can on the separate chassis, this is probably a rectifier tube or a solid-state replacement for one.
The unbroken tubes may still be good, if you have something that can use them. Nowadays, with something that is in that bad shape, there isn't much point in salvaging components. You may be able to clean up the air-variable capacitor, and the transformer may still be good for something. You could sandblast the rust off of it, repaint it and it might be usable in a power supply or something like that.


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
this is a pretty interesting video, showing voltage induction by just tapping a laminated steel core transformer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK1VG8h2Wc
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1413
this is a pretty interesting video, showing voltage induction by just tapping a laminated steel core transformer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK1VG8h2Wc
Seems like the remanent magnetism of the keeper and/or of the core.
I bet that tapping  it with a non-ferromagnetic piece would not have this effect.

Modulating flux from the remanent magnetization is very different from this Villari effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
nice video, I like it!
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 43
Don't assume that a field that can move flowing charge is a magnetic field - and don't assume that moving charges are electrons.

Novel charge carriers may produce electrostatic (capacitive) and magnetic (inductive) effects but they will not behave in any rational manner across a semiconductor junction... in fact you are likely to cause inexplicable failures in digital equipment even at a distance you think is safe- I know this from first hand experience.

Novel charge carriers will produce novel fields in addition to classical fields when they move. Novel fields may extend into other dimensions -- study the mapping of dimensions.

Our experience with valves is good -- deflecting charges around a vacuum is more reliable than using mosfets and you can still get low ns HV pulses if you want.

Not sure why I am offering this ...holiday madness I suppose... and my account got trashed and all the history has been lost :(

While I'm posting -- did anyone else ever work out the mathematical foundation for the ratios of frequencies SM quoted? ... and realize the implications? .. if you did then please contact me privately.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2756
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Mark,

What are these Novel charge carriers you are referring to?

In terms of the frequencies he alluded to using, see attached for what I came up with 8 years ago. Probably way off base, but seemed to make sense for me at the time.


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2756
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here is another document I was working on at the time.

Probably complete rubbish, but nonetheless could be fruit for thought.


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 43
@poynt99

wrong calculations --- look beyond harmonic oscillations. By first principals if there is an energy imbalance/flow then you have a non-linear system... look into multi-component nonlinear systems -- the concept of resonance is one of a stale solution -- in non-linear and semi-chaotic systems the stable solutions are most often called other things. research how multi component systems can mode lock. Research how the maximum energy can be loaded into a system - its not resonance.

Everyone look for Tao/(Jason Kapica)
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
Hey Mark
Quote
look beyond harmonic oscillations. By first principals if there is an energy imbalance/flow then you have a non-linear system... look into multi-component nonlinear systems -- the concept of resonance is one of a stale solution -- in non-linear and semi-chaotic systems the stable solutions are most often called other things. research how multi component systems can mode lock. Research how the maximum energy can be loaded into a system - its not resonance.

I have found many people like to throw around terms like resonance, harmonic oscillations, reactive current and so forth but I have found very few people can actually explain these terms in a meaningful way. It's like saying I understand my car but know nothing about how an engine works let alone how to fix one.

Since you have thrown out a bone in the spirit of giving so will I. The universe is a very simple place once we learn the fundamentals of the basic building blocks... Energy, Fields and Particles. Energy is change and as Faraday said it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. Fields are a product of an internal change interacting with a external change producing an interference pattern we call a field.

I like your thoughts on non-linear systems and generally the first thing I do is lose all the absurd terminology, the hocus pocus and concentrate on the facts. The facts tell us Energy is conserved and if energy is conserved then the energy put into a system is equal to the energy dissipated within the system...Sum zero. However by the law of equal and opposite action/reaction the alter ego must be that energy dissipated within an open system must cause an influx of energy to once again hold the status quo...Sum zero. You see the law of the conservation of energy does not act for or against us, it is what it is and anything more or less is a man made artifact bearing little resemblance to reality.

We think we may create only to destroy however the concept in itself always has an alter ego latent beneath the surface. When we destroy our past preconceived notions the void must be filled with new idea's because nature abhors a vacuum. Destruction creates just as creation destroys and the construct on non-linear is a way of saying nature will decide as it always has. Nature is what it is and so are we however how we interact with nature... our ingenuity, our creativity, our knowledge and understanding will decide our fate. I find comfort in this because we are not equals... we are individuals.

Merry Christmas and a meaningful new year to all.
AC


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

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 311
A.C.,That was a good read, I enjoyed that and it made sense to me. Thanks for posting that, I kind of feel the same way. However we do know that we can utilize energy either very cheaply or "free" with old tech like wind turbines and such. It's just one of those things where when the source of the energy is defined there is no O.U.. Nature is simple but also very complex, depending on how we evaluate things. My jackpot would simply be a novel way to utilize energy from some source cheaply without creating other problems. Also greater efficiency in some things is always good too.

Cheers
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2377
AC wrote,
Quote
Since you have thrown out a bone in the spirit of giving so will I. The universe is a very simple place once we learn the fundamentals of the basic building blocks... Energy, Fields and Particles. Energy is change and as Faraday said it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. Fields are a product of an internal change interacting with a external change producing an interference pattern we call a field.

  A bit obtuse for me - but I freely admit I do not fully understand Fields.  For example, what carries the electric field, and the gravitational field?  When a field interacts with a particle, how is momentum (P) conserved (PC)? 

Let me pose a couple of examples I've been thinking about along these lines, throwing in the important concept of "delay" due to finite speeds of changes in fields.

Consider the earth going around the sun, attracted by gravity.  The earth is eight light-minutes distant from the sun - pls keep that in mind.  Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa).

Gotta run - any disagreement with that statement, "Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa)"
?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 334
Believing something false does not make it true.
May I ask a question here?  How do we know the sun responds to where the earth was 8 minutes ago?  I wasn't aware anyone had been able to measure the speed of gravity.  If that is known, how did they arrive at the speed value?  I am most definitely not trying to be argumentative here.  I am just trying to learn something I am ignorant about.



---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2377
  Good question - actually, we're theorizing that a change in gravity (as for example from the earth moving) travels at the speed of light.

   Another example, a high-energy (say 1.1 MeV) gamma ray traveling near a nucleus can produce an electron and its anti-particle, a positron.  Suddenly mass appears on the scene.

 How soon before the gravity from the "new" particles can be felt at a distance of 1 foot?  Answer, 1 nanosecond (light travels 0.98 feet in one ns).  We'll use 1 foot per ns, rounding up a little.

Each of these is charged - how soon before the electrical field from the electron can be detected, one foot away?  A:  1 ns.  Yes, this is an assumption - that the newly-formed E-field travels at the speed of light (I doubt this has actually been measured).

   Another example, a positron encounters an electron and they annihilate (to form two photons, back to back).  Now mass disappears from the seen. How soon can this loss of mass -and charge- be detected one foot away?  A:  1 ns.

 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 530
Consider the earth going around the sun, attracted by gravity.  The earth is eight light-minutes distant from the sun - pls keep that in mind.  Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa).

Gotta run - any disagreement with that statement, "Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa)"?

@PhysicsProf

I think your question can be better asked this way.

If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.

wattsup


---------------------------
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1023
  Good question - actually, we're theorizing that a change in gravity (as for example from the earth moving) travels at the speed of light.

   Another example, a high-energy (say 1.1 MeV) gamma ray traveling near a nucleus can produce an electron and its anti-particle, a positron.  Suddenly mass appears on the scene.

 How soon before the gravity from the "new" particles can be felt at a distance of 1 foot?  Answer, 1 nanosecond (light travels 0.98 feet in one ns).  We'll use 1 foot per ns, rounding up a little.

Each of these is charged - how soon before the electrical field from the electron can be detected, one foot away?  A:  1 ns.  Yes, this is an assumption - that the newly-formed E-field travels at the speed of light (I doubt this has actually been measured).

   Another example, a positron encounters an electron and they annihilate (to form two photons, back to back).  Now mass disappears from the seen. How soon can this loss of mass -and charge- be detected one foot away?  A:  1 ns.

 

In my professional career I had the use of a time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS.  So I could measure effects over small distances (like a few cm).  Although designed for finding discontinuities in 50 ohm transmission lines, it could also be used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds.  I can verify that magnetic and electric near-fields do travel at the speed of light (that is the fields themselves, not necessarily the transport of power which travels slower in near-field coupling situations.  I guess modern TDR's have an even better resolution, my TDR was 1964 vintage!  So the sudden presence of electrons on the plate of a capacitor create an influence that travels at the speed of light (or less in a dielectric).  Does that answer the question concerning the sudden appearance of an electron?

One of the novel uses of this TDR was to "look" into a small void to establish the conditions inside that void.  The void in question was an electrical switch operated by acceleration that was part of a weapon safety system, where a spring loaded mass could move under acceleration to then close some contacts.  The TDR was connected to the contacts and the scope picture then related to the placement of the internal components.  In effect a tiny electric field radar looking into the void.

Another unofficial use was for demonstrating the principles of radar to Air Cadets where I was for a short time a civilian instructor.  I used coaxial cable placed across a table and transmitted a surface wave along the outside of the cable.  A small aeroplane model made of aluminum could be placed on the coax whereupon its position showed up on the scope just as in a radar A trace.

Smudge
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 311
I watched a show last night called " The Search for Gravitational Waves", at least as much as I could watch of it, and I was appalled, it was mostly drivel. The so called scientists cannot and will not address the issue of where everything came from to begin with. They just say "at such and such point after the moment of creation". Does that mean they believe that the Universe was just created out of nothing ? Which is of course impossible ! Or does it mean they believe a god or something created everything including itself at the beginning of the Universe ? They talk about the Big Bang as if it was just after the "creation" of the Universe.

I don't get why they get paid. They just theorize absolute rubbish. There is only one Logical way to look at the Universe and that is that everything that exists now has always existed in some form or another. And quite probably the Universe goes through cycles as with most other natural things. It expands then contracts to a point repeatedly over an extremely long time. Or as we have no way of knowing how much of the Universe we are actually aware of it could expand in one part while it contracts in another part.

Some talk of dual opposing Universes or Multi-verses but the reality for me is that The actual Universe is everything that exists everywhere at any given point in our existence and that The Known Universe is all that we are aware of so far.

I could not continue to watch the show the speakers were highly trained people, but they were talking like a bunch of kids making stuff up. One of them came up with "inflationary theory" and all he could say was that at some point the Universe was very small, even smaller than the smallest particle, then through inflation it doubled in size every trillionth of a second or something until it eventually slowed down to a more sedate expansion. But no desire to make logic of how the first bit came into existence to begin with. I see those people as not just a waste of time and money but my thinking tells me they are actively convoluting the issue.

The things they were saying were nonsensical and illogical. I was shocked and appalled at the same time. They said that if a Gravity wave passed through the Earth the room would be distorted in dimensions one way then the other and other such drivel.

..
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-02-19, 17:56:34