PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-03-24, 05:15:19
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: Electromagnetic Archimed's screw  (Read 2219 times)
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
Hi All

A few years ago, while visiting the park of the castle of Le Clos Lucé, France, where Leonardo da Vinci, invited by King Francis I in 1516, finished the last 4 years of his life, I had discovered the model of an invention (see photo) that is not Leonardo's but that he had taken from Archimedes, and which is Archimedes' screw.



By turning, with a crank, a tube wound helically along an inclined cylinder whose end is immersed in water, the water can be easily raised.

I wonder how to adapt the idea to the electromagnetic domain. This would make it possible to obtain a direct current from a rotating movement, thus from an alternating current, or a constant field from a variable field.
The idea does not seem to have been studied. The closest I have found is this patent, but it is a motor and I'm interested in solid state.

I started testing with a ferrite rod along which four copper strips were plated (see attached file). Associated two by two, they form cross capacitors. By powering them with two generators out of phase by 90°, we obtain a rotating electric field, and I hoped that the rotating polarization current in the ferrite, which is a very good dielectric, would create a detectable magnetic field with a compass (the coil we see in the picture was only there to detect a variable field).
My first attempts were negative, I don't know if it's a question of bad principle or of too weak effect.

Any explanation or other ideas?


---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3427
It's turtles all the way down
Maybe this is the opposite of the Archimedes Screw:

I have always been interested in the inertial effect of electrons as demonstrated by Stewart-Tolman experiments in the early 1900's. They spun up a large coil then abruptly stopped it producing a voltage difference at the ends of the wires.

In a web search look for accurate descriptions of the original experiments.

I had just finished repairing one of those hose roll up contraptions used for garden hoses. When I went to test it I noticed a large reaction force in the coil of hose to the flow of water,  when the water was turned on or off abruptly. I'm sure there is some small steady state effect from the flow of water also.

I wondered if a coil would experience the same effect if it were pulsed, but never conceived of a proper experiment worthy of testing as it gets complicated because of reflections or BEMF. Maybe a coiled up transmission line would work as the pulse could be absorbed at one end without reflection.

Regards


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
...
I wondered if a coil would experience the same effect if it were pulsed, but never conceived of a proper experiment worthy of testing as it gets complicated because of reflections or BEMF. Maybe a coiled up transmission line would work as the pulse could be absorbed at one end without reflection.
...

The inertial effect of electrons needs very high speed/acceleration and big charges. I fear that their drift velocity in a conductor (<< 1mm/s) is not sufficient to give a significant effect under a current. But when they are accelerated in a CRT, their mass must be taken into account.

My idea was not to use a mechanical method like in the Archimedes screw, but to find the equivalence of mechanical force and angular velocity in the field of electrical/magnetic forces and spin to simulate the screw method.
However, the idea of using electrons inertia joins another idea that I have of using currents in dielectrics rather than in conductors. In a dielectric, under a field, electronic clouds can shift very quickly around atomic nuclei (even if they are captive), thus having very high accelerations and perhaps inertial effects.

In dielectrics, we only have alternating current, so that inertial effects cancel each other out on average. But we have the Lorentz's force. If charges are accelerated back and forth in a dielectric by an electric field, and at the same time subjected to a transverse magnetic field of same frequency and phase, then the force F=q.VxB will always be of same direction because V (related to the current I) and B, change direction at the same time. We should have a directional force while using alternating fields.
I have already tried experimentally but without success, I don't know why.



---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3038


Buy me some coffee


In dielectrics, we only have alternating current, so that inertial effects cancel each other out on average. But we have the Lorentz's force. If charges are accelerated back and forth in a dielectric by an electric field, and at the same time subjected to a transverse magnetic field of same frequency and phase, then the force F=q.VxB will always be of same direction because V (related to the current I) and B, change direction at the same time. We should have a directional force while using alternating fields.
I have already tried experimentally but without success, I don't know why.

Sounds much like the magnetohydrodynamic drive/pump,which can also use AC as you have explained above.
If it works with water,i dont see why it will not work with electrons.

An interesting project  O0


Brad


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

Posts: 1069
Maybe the Thoneman patent is of interest here, see
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3418.msg59845#msg59845
and the following messages.  In my opinion a negative surface charge (excess electrons) can allow a surface current to flow at much greater drift velocity than the usual volume current, and that could be put to useful effect.
Smudge
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3427
It's turtles all the way down
Maybe the Thoneman patent is of interest here, see
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3418.msg59845#msg59845
and the following messages.  In my opinion a negative surface charge (excess electrons) can allow a surface current to flow at much greater drift velocity than the usual volume current, and that could be put to useful effect.
Smudge

Strange, I remember contributing to that thread but it now says it is off limits to me.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
Sounds much like the magnetohydrodynamic drive/pump,which can also use AC as you have explained above.
If it works with water,i dont see why it will not work with electrons.

An interesting project  O0

Brad

I forgot the MHD. I agree, it's really the same principle. I would just like the system to be solid state. In MHD, forces act on the charges of a conductive fluid to provide relative motion.
I'm looking for a way so that the forces on the charges provide a current. We are in 3D: an electric field along X to move electrons back and forth in a current I along X, a transverse magnetic field B along Y, synchronous with I, and which deflects electrons perpendicularly, i. e. along Z, always in the same direction. Therefore, we should detect a current along Z, a kind of full wave rectified current. Even if we don't have the DC component, we should see this double frequency signal. But I never could detect it. Something must be missing or wrong.



---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
... In my opinion a negative surface charge (excess electrons) can allow a surface current to flow at much greater drift velocity than the usual volume current, and that could be put to useful effect.
Smudge

You mean a conductive surface and electrons subjected to an electrical force? Or to a mechanical force? I asked myself the same question.
In the case of electrical force, for example, by commuting a voltage through successive electrodes over a copper strip to create a moving field, since there is no specialization of electrons, I tend to think that excess electrons play the same role as free electrons.



---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1069
You mean a conductive surface and electrons subjected to an electrical force? Or to a mechanical force? I asked myself the same question.
In the case of electrical force, for example, by commuting a voltage through successive electrodes over a copper strip to create a moving field, since there is no specialization of electrons, I tend to think that excess electrons play the same role as free electrons.
Yes I mean a conductive surface that is one electrode of a capacitor charged to a high DC voltage.  If that is a linear conductor that passes through a ring core it can receive an electrical force that will create greater electron bunching one side of the core and less the other side over a half cycle.  A succession of ring cores driven with 90 degree phase shift between successive cores will do the linear-motor thing and pump electron bunches along at a speed determined by the input frequency.  I think that will work somewhat like a peristaltic pump.
Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1069
Strange, I remember contributing to that thread but it now says it is off limits to me.
Well it let me in earlier today while I reminded myself but now it is off limits.  Strange indeed!!
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3427
It's turtles all the way down
Well it let me in earlier today while I reminded myself but now it is off limits.  Strange indeed!!

I  pm'ed Peter, he replied that the particular post may have been deleted. Nevertheless I found a way back into the Thoneman work with a search.

During that time in 2017, I was focused on the Thoneman replication with partzman, Itsu and others, so I did not give but a quick read to a paper and some software posted by Vasik referencing the work of Michael (aka Mimo?).

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.msg61310#msg61310

I again downloaded the paper and gave it a better read. Some of you may find his hypothesis interesting, and his work with the fields from split ring cores.

I still hold my original opinion that his build may have been overly complex for a proof of concept. Since the work ended abruptly with no testing we can not know if it has worth, however some of the concepts put forth are interesting. We share the opinion that phonons, magnetostriction and supersonic (ultrasonic) acoustic waves may participate.

If you have the time, give it a read, there are some jewels to be found.

Regards

P.S I will bump the thread with Vasiks paper regarding the work of "Mimo" as some of the points in the paper deserve a closer look.
« Last Edit: 2019-01-11, 17:05:38 by ion »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
I am looking to perform an experiment similar to the MHD, but where instead of obtaining a relative movement due to the forces on the charges, we obtain a current.

See experiment diagram in the attached file.

Along a ferrite cylinder are plated 4 copper strips constituting, two by two, two crossed capacitors (of about 22pF). The ferrite plays the role of dielectric.

The FG powers a coil around the ferrite with a current I, creating a magnetic field B.
This generator is also connected to 2 opposite plates (in dark blue on the diagram), creating an electric field E through a diameter of the ferrite, thus creating a polarization current.

Since the polarization current and magnetic field are transverse, the Lorentz force F=q.VxB should apply to the dielectric charges, and creates a polarization current perpendicular to E and B, therefore directed along the axis of the second capacitor (in light blue).

E and B being synchronous, they change sign at the same time, so the force F is always in the same direction (MHD principle). I expected to detect at the terminals of the second capacitor a kind of double alternating rectified voltage, therefore a signal at twice the frequency.

But nothing. Even with a filter at  twice the frequency to remove pollution from the fundamental frequency, nothing is detected. What did I miss?


---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3427
It's turtles all the way down
I see what you are attempting but can't yet think of an improvement to the test.

Maybe Smudge could help out here.

Regards


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
Second setup with a ferrite toroid.
The inner and outer walls of a ferrite cylinder are copper plated and form a capacitor that produces an electric field across the thickness of the torus.
Coil 1 (see attached file) produces a magnetic field in phase with the electric field, directed in circle inside the ferrite.
The Lorentz force must therefore be exerted vertically on the electrons in the ferrite, always in the same direction because E and B are synchronous, they change sign at the same time.
The vertical movement of electrons means that the ferrite can be seen as a section of a large conductor in which a current flows, inducing an FEM that should be detectable by coil 2.

Again, negative result. There is certainly an impediment in principle, but I don't see where.

Update : the second setup can't work because the B field produced by Lorentz force on dielectric charges is around the ferrite cylinder. Attached file modified.
« Last Edit: 2019-01-16, 13:38:23 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
I found a scientific paper that gives a little more credit to my idea (see attached extract). However, I still do not see why I cannot experimentally highlight the current or voltage transverse at I and B in a dielectric where I and B are synchronous, as a consequence of the Lorentz force F=i.l.B (F=vxB).

The force F is proportional to the product I x B. Since I and B are sinusoidal, this gives us F of sin² type. Therefore, in addition to the DC component, a signal at twice the frequency must appear, as from a full-wave rectifier.
Yesterday's experiments with a selective receiver tuned at twice the I and B frequency showed no significant signals. I still don't see why.

----------------------------
Update:
I understood one minute after I posted the paper above, and thanks to this paper.
The Lorentz force acts in the dielectric on both positive and negative charges. We know that the electronic clouds of atoms will move in one direction much more than the positive nuclei in the other. However, the current of both types of charges is of same amplitude and in opposite directions! So, if we do have a net force on the charges of both types, therefore a mechanical effect like in MHD, on the other hand we cannot highlight an electrical effect because the charges of both sign have opposite effects.

By charging the dielectric with static charges beforehand, would it be possible to create an electrical imbalance that the Lorentz force could translate into electrical effects, not sure but I'm thinking about it.

« Last Edit: 2019-01-15, 10:07:39 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr
see the TPU and AVEC
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1069

The Lorentz force acts in the dielectric on both positive and negative charges. We know that the electronic clouds of atoms will move in one direction much more than the positive nuclei in the other. However, the current of both types of charges is of same amplitude and in opposite directions!
No, the velocities or movements are in opposite directions, but the currents are in the same direction.
Smudge
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
Quote
The Lorentz force acts in the dielectric on both positive and negative charges. We know that the electronic clouds of atoms will move in one direction much more than the positive nuclei in the other. However, the current of both types of charges is of same amplitude and in opposite directions!

No, the velocities or movements are in opposite directions, but the currents are in the same direction.
Smudge

No, the currents I'm talking about are in opposite directions. Remember that we are talking about charges under the Lorentz force F=q.VxB, this current I2 is transverse to the current I1 of charges at speed V due to the electric field E (B and V are perpendicular).

  • Under the same electric field E, charges of different sign go in opposite direction, their speed vector have opposite sign and also their charge sign, thus their current I1 is of same sign.
  • As they share the same B field which is synchronous with E and transverse, and the Lorentz force depends on the charge sign and on the speed vector, opposite charges going in opposite direction are submitted to a force of same direction (that's the MHD principle).
  • The charges going in the same direction under the Lorentz force (transverse to I1 and to B) and being of opposite sign, their currents are opposite, so I2=0.

This is why I would like to create an imbalance of charges of both sign in a dielectric to avoid the cancellation of  the transverse current I2.

(This may be the cause of the non-linearities I observe with conductive ferrites, the magnetic field being the one created by I1: the charges would be deflected by their own magnetic field as for the skin effect, but the effect would be much greater in conductive ferrites because of their permeability and permittivity much higher than in metals. It's to dig deeper).





---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
Maybe this thread is not clear on the purpose, not even to me at the begining. I'll try to clarify simply, now that I have a lead for the archimedes' screw.

We know that the Lorentz force F=q.VxB is transverse to the speed of the charges, therefore to the current. This force is generally used as a mechanical force, for example in a motor, because the force on the charges in a current I1 is deflected perpendicularly but the charges cannot escape from the conductor wire. The force is therefore transferred to the crystal lattice of the conductor wire and becomes a mechanical force on the wire.

What if this force instead of being mechanical, could remain electric and create an I2 current transverse to the main current?

Since this current I2 would be proportional to both B and I1, that B and I1 can be alternating and in phase so that the product always remains of the same sign, including excess charges in dielectrics, then the force would also remain of the same direction and we would have a rectification. But unlike a diode, it would have no threshold effect! This means that even thermal noise could be rectified.
There are probably many other possibilities for using this "cross current", and I am not aware that this avenue would have been explored.



---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3427
It's turtles all the way down
Maybe this thread is not clear on the purpose, not even to me at the begining. I'll try to clarify simply, now that I have a lead for the archimedes' screw.

We know that the Lorentz force F=q.VxB is transverse to the speed of the charges, therefore to the current. This force is generally used as a mechanical force, for example in a motor, because the force on the charges in a current I1 is deflected perpendicularly but the charges cannot escape from the conductor wire. The force is therefore transferred to the crystal lattice of the conductor wire and becomes a mechanical force on the wire.

What if this force instead of being mechanical, could remain electric and create an I2 current transverse to the main current?

Since this current I2 would be proportional to both B and I1, that B and I1 can be alternating and in phase so that the product always remains of the same sign, including excess charges in dielectrics, then the force would also remain of the same direction and we would have a rectification. But unlike a diode, it would have no threshold effect! This means that even thermal noise could be rectified.
There are probably many other possibilities for using this "cross current", and I am not aware that this avenue would have been explored.

I think you are on to something here. Please do not give up on this.

I  see that you also find interest in the writings of Bibhas De, as do I.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr

What if this force instead of being mechanical, could remain electric and create an I2 current transverse to the main current?


Do you mean induce a current into a wire in the center of a coil?

This is what occurred in the later TPU's, per Mr. Mark's own description.  How it occurred is a subject of mystery...
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr
Maybe this is the opposite of the Archimedes Screw:

I have always been interested in the inertial effect of electrons as demonstrated by Stewart-Tolman experiments in the early 1900's. They spun up a large coil then abruptly stopped it producing a voltage difference at the ends of the wires.


https://authors.library.caltech.edu/3372/

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3427
It's turtles all the way down
Regarding the paper by Bibhas De: I remember reading it many years ago, but nothing sunk in until I re-read it thanks to  F6FLT who posted an excerpt.

Here is one section (Equation 10 posted below) that is worthy of further thought, especially in reference to the TPU. The whole paper is a good read so I have attached it below.

Grumpy:
I am very interested in Stewart / Tolman experiments, and the inertial effects of electrons, especially how it might apply to the TPU.
I referenced their work in a paper called "Acoustic Resonator Hypothesis" back in 2007.
Accelerating electrons in a conductor by means of a current is fruitless as the current freezes the electrons, limiting them to normal drift velocity um/sec. SM gave us a few clues to overcoming this "mean free path" problem.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr
Another inertial effect, attributed to rotating magnets, is the Aspden Effect, discovered by Dr. Harold Aspden.

Coincidentally, both the Aspden Effect and the Stewart / Tolman effect show a greater effect depending on the rotational direction.   I have not compared them to see if the actual directions coincide between the two.

So, are these effects due to electrons in conductors or the "space" around the moving conductor being entrained?
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
Thank you for the R Bibhas paper, Ion. It's just in the subject.

When he writes: "all substances (conductors and dielectrics) experience the J x B force in a magnetic field", he reminds me of another closely related question that intrigued me and remained unanswered.

R Bibhas uses in its formulations currents, current density and he considers material dielectrics. We understand that the Lorentz force can be applied to the charges and therefore to the dielectric. In this context everything is clear.

The problem is that even vacuum can be used as a dielectric, and we can always talk about current and current density through vacuum. If we keep his equations, and wonder about the passage of a polarization current in vacuum, for example between the plates of a capacitor, then the J x B force should apply to the vacuum.

But the vacuum between plates, unlike a material dielectric, is not rigidly bound to the plates. Would the J x B force displace the vacuum (the pairs of virtual charges)? If so, this would challenge the conservation of momentum of the device, which has not been seen experimentally, and would also require two explanations, one for material dielectrics, the other for vacuum dielectric, which is not satisfactory.

However I think R Bibhas is right about the effect of Lorentz force on dielectric charges, but how can this view be reconciled with a vacuum dielectric?



---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-03-24, 05:15:19