Switched capacitor motor

[Allcanadian]

@verpies

Smudge's objection to the phrase "The PM field saturates the inductor" is valid because the PM's magnetic field has nothing to saturate in an air-coil.

Therein lies the problem doesn't it and this strange concept of "nothing" always seems to appear as if my magic. A field does not need something to exist other than a volume of space but there is nothing there is there, lol?.

In a coil the energy is stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current) and in a capacitor the energy is stored as electric field (manifesting as voltage).

I guess the obvious question is what causes the "energy stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current)" to manifest a current?. Why it was the Emf induced in the coil by the magnetic field which caused the current in the coil. The same Emf in the capacitor which caused the current to flow... so how are they any different?. Why would we say one manifests as current and the other manifests as voltage when we know as a fact in every case the Emf (voltage) is always the cause of the current?.

It's a ratio of magnetic flux to current.

So inductance is the ratio of magnetic flux to current?.

Here is the standard definition:
Inductance is the property of an electrical conductor by which a change in current flowing through it induces an electromotive force in both the conductor itself and in any nearby conductors by mutual inductance.

So if we wanted to describe Inductance in plain english that actually makes sense that people might actually understand we might say... Inductance is what happens when a change in the motion of charges produces a changing magnetic field which then produces a force on other nearby charges.


AC

[Verpies]

@verpies Therein lies the problem doesn't it and this strange concept of "nothing" always seems to appear as if by magic.

If you took the time to study the material from that link that I had provided in my last message, it would not seem magical to you.

A field does not need something to exist other than a volume of space but there is nothing there is there, lol?.

All of this elucidated in the aforementioned link.  Our Euclidean space is a reference system created by the motion of gravitating matter.  It is not an aquarium that we all swim in...  Even what appears to us as nothing is composed of discrete units of time associated with discrete units of space in 1:1 ratio that we commonly know as the speed of light (c).  Any deviation from that 1:1 ratio constitutes observable phenomena like force fields and even atoms.

I guess the obvious question is what causes the "energy stored as magnetic field (manifesting as current)" to manifest a current?.

Electric current is a 1D motion which cancels the 3D inward motion of gravitating matter and leaves a 2D deviation. This 2D deviation is the magnetic field.
FYI: 1D deviation results in electric phenomena and 3D deviation results in gravitational phenomena.

So inductance is the ratio of magnetic flux to current?.

Yes, and more precisely: inductance is the ratio of magnetic flux to ampturns ...and there are many other, equally true definitions, too.  My favorite one is L = t³/s³ , see here for more units.

I know, that going to the roots is very interesting and all, but this is not a right place to discuss fundamental physics.  This is an engineering forum geared towards construction of FE devices and this thread is about Smudge's device and its variations.

If you really want to discuss the fundamentals of the universe then register on this forum and post your questions there to a user named bperet and even to me, if you want.

...just not here.

[Verpies]

Why would we say one manifests as current and the other manifests as voltage when we know as a fact in every case the Emf (voltage) is always the cause of the current?

And that cause and effect is expressed by the Ohm's law as:  i=V/R  or  i=ℰ/R
But that law, and the causality it represents, does not work for closed superconductive loops, since any voltage over a zero resistance would result in infinite current, yet currents in closed superconductive loops, that are subjected to varying flux, are neither infinite nor zero... they are somewhere in between.  

Another way to cause electric current is to mechanically move charges (e.g. on a spinning charged dielectric disk, like described here).  Mind you - charge is not the same as voltage or emf (ξ).

So there goes your immutable observation that current is always caused by voltage.

Also, the reciprocal is not always true - voltage is not always caused by current.

[Allcanadian]

@verpies

Another way to cause electric current is to mechanically move charges (e.g. on a spinning charged dielectric disk, like described here).  Mind you - charge is not the same as voltage or emf (ξ).
So there goes your immutable observation that current is always caused by voltage.

I hate to always be the one to state the obvious but when charges are acted on "mechanically" this is a field on field operation so yes there is an Emf present. How else could the charge move if not through a force acting on it's field?.

All of this elucidated in the aforementioned link.  Our Euclidean space is a reference system created by the motion of gravitating matter.  It is not an aquarium that we all swim in...  Even what appears to us as nothing is composed of discrete units of time associated with discrete units of space in 1:1 ratio that we commonly know as the speed of light (c).  Any deviation from that 1:1 ratio constitutes observable phenomena like force fields and even atoms.

Down, down the rabbit hole we go.
I read some of the link a while back and found it to be more nonsensical gobble-de-gook not unlike that most have bought into. It's simply a different flavor of delusional in my opinion and I reject it.

Back on topic... if a current from the capacitor generates a magnetic field which acts on another PM magnetic field then there must be two fields present. In order for one field to act on the other a force must be present somewhere which translates through the fields to the PM. Simple enough because the PM moved and a change in motion requires a force to cause the change in motion. Therefore it seems obvious to me that when the two fields interact there must be more magnetic field present because we have already declared there are two fields interacting with one another. Again, simple enough and if there is more magnetic field present and interacting the absolute field density must have increased translating back to the source saturating the coil causing it to dissipate energy as heat. As it turns out this dissipation of energy in the coil corresponds to the work performed by the PM.

This substantiates the conservation of energy in this case however it does not prove this must always happen in every case if the variables have changed in some fundamental way. We need to change the variables to change the result, that's the way it works.

AC

[Smudge]

Back on topic... if a current from the capacitor generates a magnetic field which acts on another PM magnetic field then there must be two fields present. In order for one field to act on the other a force must be present somewhere which translates through the fields to the PM. Simple enough because the PM moved and a change in motion requires a force to cause the change in motion. Therefore it seems obvious to me that when the two fields interact there must be more magnetic field present because we have already declared there are two fields interacting with one another. Again, simple enough and if there is more magnetic field present and interacting the absolute field density must have increased translating back to the source saturating the coil causing it to dissipate energy as heat. As it turns out this dissipation of energy in the coil corresponds to the work performed by the PM.

Really?  So in any PM motor the work performed is accompanied by an equivalent amount of heat dissipation in the coils?  So those new fangled PM motors that are >90% efficient are a figment of our imagination?  Pull the other one!

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

@Smudge

Really?  So in any PM motor the work performed is accompanied by an equivalent amount of heat dissipation in the coils?  So those new fangled PM motors that are >90% efficient are a figment of our imagination?  Pull the other one!

No what I meant to say is I have no idea what in the hell I'm talking about, lol. Although I was up very late last night having a few beer with the boys and it was a little foggy this morning. You are correct and only the losses dissipate as heat in the system.

This thread is just big old bundle of illogical fallacies but sooner or later we might sort it all out.


AC

[evolvingape]

@evolvingape
The problem I see is that even if your proposition worked and even if you gave it all away. The moment a purely electrical machine with moving parts or not came to be it would be render a water based gravity machine pointless. As such I have absolutely no interest in them because even if they did work they would soon be obsolete. Gears and pumps and rotating things or floats is the past.... a device making no sound with no moving parts generating tangible power is the future. I am bound to the future not the past.
AC

My proposition does work hence the lack of refutation from the community to my historical proofs. I have given it all away, of course i could enhance it but the job is done and any additional work done simply speeds manifestation but does not impact momental magnitude. The technology I redefine is centuries, if not millennia old. An electromagnetic alternator in my system would drop the efficiency of that energy process to 60% instead of 90% with neodymiums. I can accommodate this through my manipulation of the fundamental primary vector force in the COP>1 half cycle. Your future fantasy of a magic black box is just that, a fantasy.. my hhop gen 3 is here now in the present, supported in every instance by past laws

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE, some unwelcome breaking news coming.

The system is not OU, without any losses it has a COP of unity.

Smudge

Smudge has realised that half a cycle is always unity at best. Half cycle output (electricity) can be injected into system 180 out of phase for system reset. Negative primary vector for a scalar body becomes a free variable within the system input hence COP<1 first 50% duty cycle.. COP>1 second 50% duty cycle [system].. Negative primary vector is a scalar input via the specific gravity field and the energy for which is provided by the primary fundamental vector force field (gravity).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c1

I am currently attempting to integrate RS2 into SGF, hence my silence on the matter.

[Verpies]

I am currently attempting to integrate RS2 into SGF, hence my silence on the matter.

At least you are reading it to the end - not just some of it.

[Verpies]

@verpies
I hate to always be the one to state the obvious but when charges are acted on "mechanically" this is a field on field operation so yes there is an Emf present.

So you have to decide whether such a thing as a "mechanical field" exists at all and if emf and this "mechanical field" are equivalent.
While you are at it, you might want to try to answer what a field is, too.

[Allcanadian]

@verpies

So you have to decide whether such a thing as a "mechanical field" exists at all and if emf and this "mechanical field" are equivalent.
While you are at it, you might want to try to answer what a field is, too.

Been there don that.

What I meant to say in my prior offbeat post was that a motor coil should be treated as an inductor because it is an inductor. As such like any inductor we should get back the energy we put in minus losses. However when the PM field is present saturating the inductor we do not get back what we put in and the PM field causes an increase in current proportional to the work performed.

However if the inductor magnetic field could be retained in the core somehow outside of the context of the applied current then the work performed would not be proportional to the input. If the coil core magnetic field was retained on attraction or expelled when the PM was leaving the core then the work performed could not be proportional to the input.


AC

[Verpies]

@verpies
Been there don that.

...and what did you conclude a "field" is?

However when the PM field is present saturating the inductor we do not get back what we put in...

What is the PM's field saturating in that air-core inductor?

[TinMan]

However if the inductor magnetic field could be retained in the core somehow outside of the context of the applied current then the work performed would not be proportional to the input. If the coil core magnetic field was retained on attraction or expelled when the PM was leaving the core then the work performed could not be proportional to the input.


AC

If that is all you wish to achieve,then you simply need to use an alnico  magnet for the core,as the field in an alnico magnet can be flipped very easily. Your core's field will now remain until you apply a current in the opposite direction,and then it will once again flip the fields poles around.

[Allcanadian]

@Tinman

If that is all you wish to achieve,then you simply need to use an alnico  magnet for the core,as the field in an alnico magnet can be flipped very easily. Your core's field will now remain until you apply a current in the opposite direction,and then it will once again flip the fields poles around.

I wish it were that easy and if we are flipping an existing PM magnetic field with the applied field from a coil then the PM field is still saturating the coil field. Thus it requires energy to first neutralize the PM field then more energy to change the orientation of the magnetic domains to an opposite sense and if the alnico coil core is acting on another PM or core that force is also resisting the change in magnetic polarity.

The only way around this scenario I can conceive is if the magnetic field could be turned on and off like a switch outside the context of the forces applied from an external field. Imagine a strong magnet on our rotor which is attracted to an iron stator core. The rotor magnet is speeding towards the iron core and then just before the two align we strike the top of the iron core with a hammer scattering the domains expelling the magnetic field from the core and the magnet simply glides past the core. Obviously we don't want to use a hammer however this is the effect we would want.


We cannot repel or attract another magnetic field because that is what we do in all our machines and we know it does not work towards our goal. We are simply trying to replace one field with another. However expelling all magnetic fields from a core is a whole different animal and so far as I can tell the same rules no not apply.


AC

[ion]

I think  AC must have a different definition of magnetic saturation than verpies, judging from AC's last post.

IMO, AC has thus far neglected to answer the two questions posed by verpies (in post #85)

[Allcanadian]

@Ion

I think  AC must have a different definition of magnetic saturation than verpies, judging from AC's last post.

IMO, AC has thus far neglected to answer the two questions posed by verpies (in post #85)

Good observation and yes I was ignoring verpies post #85 because it is pointless. Yes, I may have a different perspective of saturation... so what?. However I'm not willing to derail this thread by starting a pissing contest with him or you over semantics.
As far as "the Field" is concerned I mentioned my opinion of what it is in other threads and if you want to try to find it then be my guest.

The thing to keep in mind is what we know, people like to argue semantics more so that concepts to make their point which seldom has a point. We always end up right back at square one with no progress... so why do it?.

At which point I would like to point out what seems obvious to me. We all may think were experts in our mind however the fact remains that almost none can agree on exactly what happens when a capacitor discharges into a coil of wire in the presence of a PM. I find that kind of comical that with all the problems we face none can seem to even agree on what happens when three basic components are arranged in a very simple and know way. As such if anyone here was an actual expert then obviously we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

So yes let's stick to the basic problem at hand and what we think is happening and why...on topic.


AC

[Smudge]

The only way around this scenario I can conceive is if the magnetic field could be turned on and off like a switch outside the context of the forces applied from an external field. Imagine a strong magnet on our rotor which is attracted to an iron stator core. The rotor magnet is speeding towards the iron core and then just before the two align we strike the top of the iron core with a hammer scattering the domains expelling the magnetic field from the core and the magnet simply glides past the core. Obviously we don't want to use a hammer however this is the effect we would want.

I've seen patents where this is achieved by taking the Fe material above the Curie point.  Not very practical.  Maybe a microwave pulse could do it something like NMR.

Smudge

[poynt99]

AC,

How could two scientists possibly discuss, learn from one another, and co-develop anything if they are not using the same agreed upon terminology? It IS important.

I think the "saturation" you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is regarding the time constant of the coil (after 5 tau), whereas the more common use of the term "saturation" refers to the magnetics in a cored inductor.

[Verpies]

I think the "saturation" you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is regarding the time constant of the coil (after 5 tau), whereas the more common use of the term "saturation" refers to the magnetics in a cored inductor.

We can only guess what he means by "saturation" but I don't think it is related to the L/R constant (tau) because the differential permeability of a permanent magnet (PM) is almost the same as air and as such a PM is not capable to increase the inductance (L) of an air-coil by its proximity, ...nor R.  Only soft-ferromagnetics can do that.

P.S.
The proximity of conductive PMs, such as  NdFeB can decrease the inductance of an air-coil by induced eddy currents.  Non-conductive magnets, e.g. ceramic,  cannot do that either way.

[Allcanadian]

@Poynt99

How could two scientists possibly discuss, learn from one another, and co-develop anything if they are not using the same agreed upon terminology? It IS important.

I think the "saturation" you are referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is regarding the time constant of the coil (after 5 tau), whereas the more common use of the term "saturation" refers to the magnetics in a cored inductor.

I would be the first to agree, however anyone can read a book but reading a book in no way implies one could write one. As such I tend to stretch the limitations of terms and twist the meaning of my own presumptions to gain a different perspective. How can we hope to succeed if were all reading from the same book with the same ending?. I do not intend to read about others past so much as I intend to write a new chapter in my own future... a better one. Think about it... great men do not hold the status quo they rise above it and create an new one and so must we.

For instance if one PM in series with another PM in attraction has it's flux acting through the other and if the same flux from one PM has it's flux acting through an iron core inducing a magnetic field in the core producing a second field then the phenomena has similarities. Now we take a coil with no core which produces a magnetic field and we can assume the same phenomena may apply in a slightly different way. That is the PM field saturates a region of space like water saturates a sponge and the only difference between a PM, an iron core and and the empty space in an air coil is the extent of the interaction in the context of the field.

As such I see no reason to confine the meaning of saturation to an iron core and I see it in an absolute more universal sense. The PM field will saturate a "space" like water saturates a sponge no matter which form of matter is present or supposedly none. Why would we confine our perceptions when we know this constriction limits our ability to move beyond them?. From a psychological perspective it makes no sense to me because we have created impassible walls we cannot move beyond yet that is our goal here is it not?.

In any case I am a creative Engineer and I really do not care how the problem is solved only that it is. It is that old farm boy mentality in me which rejects all those other engineers sitting around with their hands in their pockets saying it cannot be done while I am in the process of doing it which drives me forward. They have no say in what I do or think because what I do is my own. On my gravestone I hope it will read... he was the guy who got shit done because if we cannot invoke real change then we have done nothing.


AC

[Verpies]

As such I see no reason to confine the meaning of saturation to an iron core and I see it in an absolute more universal sense. The PM field will saturate a "space" like water saturates a sponge no matter which form of matter is present or supposedly none.

The definition of the "saturation" concept contains a limit, such as the limit of water that a sponge can hold or degree of magnetization an iron core can support.
However no such limit of magnetic field can be perceived in space - therefore saturation of space by magnetic field is not an observable idea.
Until it becomes such, it remains an unverified proposition, at best.

Why would we confine our perceptions when we know this constriction limits our ability to move beyond them?.

Scientists do not confine their perceptions.  In fact scientists go to great lengths and expenses to extend our perceptions with mmeters, scopes, hall sensors, GMR sensors, etc...
Logical reasoning and correlation with the great body of empirical evidence to date, further extends the conclusions stemming from these perceptions.

[Allcanadian]

@verpies

The definition of the "saturation" concept contains a limit, such as the limit of water that a sponge can hold or degree of magnetization an iron core can support.
However no such limit of magnetic field can be perceived in space - therefore saturation of space by magnetic field is not an observable idea.
Until it becomes such, it remains an unverified proposition, at best.

Most everything concerning a field is unverified or ambiguous to some extent. Why does it form an external gradient and not just stay inside the magnet or core?. There must be a reason the field forms an external gradient and then there is the fact a force has translated through an empty space... our spooky action at a distance. I understand everyone has theories concerning the nature of the field however to date we have no irrefutable answers.

In any case I like the term saturation or maybe partial saturation. It implies the perspective that space has structure or an underlying frame work, our sponge. The other option is to assume something might act through nothing which seems a little woo woo in my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying the way I use terminology and the way I perceive things are different for a reason. I mean if your supposedly right about everything and know everything but cannot succeed at building a FE device then why would I try to be just like you?. Do you want both of us to fail?, lol, it's okay to be different and I hope I am.

AC

[Smudge]

I have some empathy towards AC with his perceptions of space and fields.  My space is filled with a vast number-density of particles (like neutrinos) that whiz through it at light velocity and these are responsible for what we perceive as fields.  Stable matter particles continuously absorb and emit these space particles on a one in one out basis.  Although the space particles have zero rest-mass they do have momentum, and it is the geometric unbalance of that continuously absorbed and emitted momentum that we see as a force on the matter particle.  The space particles have spin and it is the angle of that spin relative to the arrival direction that determines how the matter particle emits its next one and that creates the geometric unbalance in absorption v. emission.  What we describe as a field around some matter (like a PM) is really a combination of
       (a) those space particles arriving from all directions at our measurement point that have a random distribution of their spin relative to their arrival direction, and their resultant interaction with our test particle that creates random jjitter or uncertainty of position.
       (b) plus those emitted from the matter particles inside the PM that have altered the otherwise otherwise random spin distribution of some of the space particles arriving at our test particle.  Their arrival does not create random jjitter or uncertainty, but creates the effect that makes us think there is a force field present.

Because our PM only absorbs and emits a tiny portion of incident space particles (most of them simply travel through the inter-atomic space) it is impossible for our PM to create any form of space "saturation".  I would prefer to use the term "modification".  Others would use the term "warped space" or "warped space-time".

Smudge

[Verpies]

At least Smudge is attempting to define what a "field" is.  Most importantly he directly states that it is a field of forces (a force field) and that it is caused by emission and  bombardment by some particles and that these particles can penetrate the nuclear matter most of the time.  

FYI: This point of view is very similar to Miles Mathis' where these particles are channeled by the nuclei in very specific ways.

IMO: This Mathis-like model explains reality much better than legacy science with their virtual photons and other BS but when you get down to what these bombarding and matter penetrating particles are composed of, then RST and RS2 lies at the root of it all anyway.  

This is something AC has rejected offhand despite not reading it till the end and because most likely his mind was unable to let go of the conceptually limiting s³/t¹ paradigm, while missing the entire array of temporal interactions manifesting themselves in space as forces.

And if Smudge proposes the "modification of space" in lieu of "saturation of space" then he must realize that his proposition endows space with other properties than that of a mere reference system.

In the end, my objection to the saturation of space in an air-coil, stands.  There no evidence of that happening and there is no manifestation of the limit to that saturation and saturation without a limit is not a saturation at all.
AC cannot just use known words with altered or undefined meanings when talking to anyone but himself.

[Allcanadian]

@Smudge
That seems like a pretty reasonable well thought out theory versus the time/space nonsense where matter and energy are controlled by math and words. I won't go into my tedious theories here however they rely on the fact there is seldom a single right answer or "silver bullet". Psychologically we like to point our finger at one thing and say that is the cause however in nature this is seldom the case. There could be hundreds of variables leading to one cause which in itself leads to many different effects on many different levels. I think it helps to apply critical thinking and analyse our own thought process in regards to what we think may be happening. That is we may all believe in similar answers not because they are more true but simply because we all think alike and have a similar perspective. Following the thought that just because more people believe something does not make it more true... it means more people believe it. In any case I would tend to agree with your thoughts and theories.

@verpies

AC cannot just use known words with altered or undefined meanings when talking to anyone but himself.

LOL, of course I can and I find it very strange that you would take it upon yourself to presume I cannot. This isn't the dark ages verpies and not you nor anyone else may dictate what I think or why.
On another note this seems to be a sign of the times and many people have come to believe that just because they assert something it must somehow in their strange little world be true simply because they have asserted it.


AC

[Matt Watts]

Scientists do not confine their perceptions.  In fact scientists go to great lengths and expenses to extend our perceptions with mmeters, scopes, hall sensors, GMR sensors, etc...
Logical reasoning and correlation with the great body of empirical evidence to date, further extends the conclusions stemming from these perceptions.

Maybe good to keep one little thing floating in our minds.  All these perceptions and supporting instrumentation may have something static or stable being carried along, something we presume to be fixed and unchanging or quite possibly non-existent.  The reality may be as such this something doesn't have to be fixed.  It may be that this something can be altered and controlled, but first we have to identify what it is and how to manipulate it.  Once we do, a whole new door is blown open.  Things we previously thought to be impossible, may not only become possible, but be rather easy.

If we find ourselves having to think outside the box, what we really need is a bigger box.