PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-03-24, 05:36:20
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Electromagnetic Archimed's screw  (Read 2221 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
Not in my case. You seem to have forgotten that charges are accelerated by an electric field, so they are accelerated in opposite directions but they are bathed in the same magnetic field.
I was responding to the MHD case.
Indeed the Lorentz force has two components: the electric and the magnetic ...but only the magnetic one depends on the relative velocity.

V being opposite, q being opposite, and B identical, F=q.VxB is the same: the two types of charge move in the same direction. Only the direction of the currents are opposite, likely cause of their undetectability.
In that case an electric field is the major cause of acceleration. The electric component of the Lorentz force does not depend on V. In your scenario, the acceleration is not due to the relative motion between charges and magnetic field (the magnetic component of the Lorentz force), so indeed F is the same.  In the MHD scenario the magnetic component of the Lorentz force depends on V ...and V is the same, so F is opposite and opposite charges get separated in space - that's why it works.

The question remains: why can't it be observed?
Because there is no charge separation in space.

In my answer, I indicated that the magnets increase the field here and reduce it there, and the needle orients itself according to the resultant of the field.
It's just to show that a field doesn't really "rotate". We only shape it at a distance by varying the field intensity of each coil, nothing locally rotates, the field of each coil increases and decreases...
The difference is academic.
You might as well apply the same kind of thinking to a spinning bicycle wheel and claim that its rim is not spinning but moving vertically and horizontally 1-Dimensionally 90º out of phase in time.

BTW: The Lorentz force applies to 1D pulsating magnetic fields just as well, where V is seemingly equal to zero.


P.S.
Please realize that every time you write "field" you are referring to a geometric field of forces (iow: a vector field of forces). Forces must act on something and that interaction with that something defines the force.  In electrodynamics a "field" is just a linguistic shorthand for a "field of forces".
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
are you Vencislav?
No, but I know him
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr
No, but I know him

Did you know Stephan Marinov?
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
Did you know Stephan Marinov?
Not personally. Only by phonecalls.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
I was responding to the MHD case.
Indeed the Lorentz force has two components: the electric and the magnetic ...but only the magnetic one depends on the relative velocity.
In that case an electric field is the major cause of acceleration. The electric component of the Lorentz force does not depend on V. In your scenario, the acceleration is not due to the relative motion between charges and magnetic field (the magnetic component of the Lorentz force), so indeed F is the same.

You're not talking about the principle of the setup that I'm proposing to test experimentally. Unlike the MHD, it is electrically and not mechanically that I want to highlight the movement of charges under Lorentz force.
Look here at the underlying idea:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3690.msg71088#msg71088

See the diagram
. If it is not clear, I will clarify upon request.
The tests, which have been negative so far, lead now to this simple and direct question: why can't an electrical effect be detected between the plates of capacitor 2?

Quote
You might as well apply the same kind of thinking to a spinning bicycle wheel and claim that its rim is not spinning but moving vertically and horizontally
...P.S.
Please realize that every time you write "field" you are referring to a geometric field of forces (iow: a vector field of forces). Forces must act on something and that interaction with that something defines the force.  In electrodynamics a "field" is just a linguistic shorthand for a "field of forces".

I agree only with your P.S. and consider your comparison to be irrelevant ("comparison is not reason"), and here is why.

A bicycle is a physical reality that constitutes an undeformable whole, located in a well-defined volume of space, without any relationship to anything at a distance.

A field is a set of scalars that specify locally for each position in space the effect that a remote system will have on a charge. A field is defined only at a particular point position. A field E=F/q means a local condition that will produce a force F on a charge q at this unique position. But field E has a source that is not local.
If the source changes its field, it will take a time t=d/c for the field to be changed at a distance d. Since this distance d is obviously not the same for all the positions of space where the field is defined, it follows that the topology of the field will be modified during its "update" from the source, it will not be changed as a block, which is indeed proof that the field in a volume of space cannot be considered as a whole that could rotate or move, it is not an independent physical reality.

When a light spot is projected on a wall by a mobile projector that moves it along the wall, no one believes that the photons move along the wall. The photons always come from the projector and only from the projector, and hit the wall. I don't see any point in imagining that differently when it comes to a magnetic or electric field. On the contrary, it is extremely misleading.

Moreover, the approach by the potentials allows the same results to be achieved in terms of describing local effects, demonstrating that it is not even known whether the fields are closer than the potentials to the underlying physical reality they describe. A field, or a potential, is only a mathematical facility to describe local effects without having to take into account the remote source. It's not an object.

While everyone can imagine things as they wish to clarify their ideas, more rigor is needed to share ideas in a scientific context. Explanations by a field that would be an independent blob, animated, in motion or rotation, are childish and misleading, imho they must be avoided except in trivial cases, I was not saying anything more.


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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3038


Buy me some coffee
F6FLT

One thing has me stumped with the homopolar generator  ???

We know there is a back torque when a load is placed across the output from the disc.
The question is this--we use the example where the magnets are attached to,and rotate with the disc--
Where is the physical brace for the back torque if the magnets are rotating with the disc?

I know it's not the brushes,as in my testing of my small 4 inch homopolar generator,there was no torque at all placed on the brushes when a load was placed across the output,and as there is no other physical bracing for the back torque to act against,i just don't see how the generator bogs down when under load,even though i know it dose.


Brad


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

Posts: 1069
IMO it is the spinning electrons within the magnet where the back torque applies its force.  Those electrons "see"the magnetic field coming from the load current flowing through the disc.  It matters not whether the magnet is attached to the disc, the torque is generated inside the magnet on those pesky electrons.
Smudge
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
F6FLT

One thing has me stumped with the homopolar generator  ???

We know there is a back torque when a load is placed across the output from the disc.
The question is this--we use the example where the magnets are attached to,and rotate with the disc--
Where is the physical brace for the back torque if the magnets are rotating with the disc?

I know it's not the brushes,as in my testing of my small 4 inch homopolar generator,there was no torque at all placed on the brushes when a load was placed across the output,and as there is no other physical bracing for the back torque to act against,i just don't see how the generator bogs down when under load,even though i know it dose.


Brad

Brad,

I'm not sure I understood the configuration of your experiments correctly.

Either the brushes and the load are at rest and the disc is rotated, then the disc is slowed down, or the brushes rotate and the disc is fixed, but the load must rotate with the disc so that the experiment is symmetrical and the brushes are slowed down.

The current that causes the reaction can only be consumed when the load is connected in series in the part of the circuit that sees the other part rotating. This is why if you attach a capacitor between the rim and the center of the rotating disc, it will never charge (I checked it  :( ).

A magnet only acts here as an intermediary. It is as in the case of a dynamo where it acts as a mediator between electrical and mechanical energy: the magnet is not affected energetically. To the best of my knowledge, we cannot slow down the spin (nor the angular velocity of orbital electrons, the latter also contributing a little to the magnetic field).


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

Posts: 1069
To the best of my knowledge, we cannot slow down the spin (nor the angular velocity of orbital electrons, the latter also contributing a little to the magnetic field).
You are right, and that is why those spins can be a source of energy.  In the presence of a changing magnetic field the induced electric vortex tries to slow down that spin and fails to do so, this results in energy being transferred into the field.  This becomes obvious when you consider the inter-atomic field within ferromagnetic material and in particular permanent magnets.  Current theory says that there the H field is in opposition to the B field, but that stems from our use of magnetization M as a spatially continuous attribute that does not allow that inter-atomic space to exist.  Within that space B and H are aligned and of ratio munought, and that applies to both hard and soft materials.  In soft materials the energy stored in that space far exceeds the input from the coils, and that extra energy comes from those electron spins acting as tiny generators.  I have made it my remaining lifetime work trying to extract some of that free energy, but I fear time is rapidly running out, this year I will be 85.
Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
Current theory says that there the H field is in opposition to the B field...
The NMR frequency of soft iron decreasing when the externally applied H field increases above 700mT seems to support this.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3038


Buy me some coffee
Brad,

I'm not sure I understood the configuration of your experiments correctly.

Either the brushes and the load are at rest and the disc is rotated, then the disc is slowed down, or the brushes rotate and the disc is fixed, but the load must rotate with the disc so that the experiment is symmetrical and the brushes are slowed down.

The current that causes the reaction can only be consumed when the load is connected in series in the part of the circuit that sees the other part rotating. This is why if you attach a capacitor between the rim and the center of the rotating disc, it will never charge (I checked it  :( ).

A magnet only acts here as an intermediary. It is as in the case of a dynamo where it acts as a mediator between electrical and mechanical energy: the magnet is not affected energetically. To the best of my knowledge, we cannot slow down the spin (nor the angular velocity of orbital electrons, the latter also contributing a little to the magnetic field).

The highlighted is what i am asking--where dose the equal and opposite force come from that slows down the disc ?

So with a normal generator,the equal and opposite force that bogs down the rotor of the generator when a load is applied comes from the field windings them self,which are physically fixed to the generator body. My question is-->what is the physical fixture for the equal and opposite force that bogs down the disc in the homopolar generator when a load is placed across the output ?.

We know it is not the magnets,as we can fix them to the disc,and it still generates power.
I know it is not the brushes,as i have run this experiment before,and no torque was applied to the brushes when a load was placed across the output.

Is it the produced magnetic field of the circuit that acts against the rotor that causes it to bog down.
If so,could we not just put a shield around the circuit to stop this magnetic field ?.


Brad


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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
If so,could we not just put a shield around the circuit to stop this magnetic field ?.
The output circuit represents a 1-turn winding.  Have you ever noticed that shielding a 1-turn secondary winding in a transformer does not work?  This is the same...
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3038


Buy me some coffee
The output circuit represents a 1-turn winding.  Have you ever noticed that shielding a 1-turn secondary winding in a transformer does not work?  This is the same...

It would if you cut off the magnetic path to that secondary.


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

Posts: 235
The highlighted is what i am asking--where dose the equal and opposite force come from that slows down the disc ?
...

A Faraday generator can be synthesized in the form of two half-circuits connected together by sliding contacts, both of which are at least partially surrounded by a common magnetic field B.

Let us take as a reference one of the half parts, we will consider it at rest, and the other moving relatively to it.

The moving part, say here the disk, passes through the magnetic field, thus producing an EMF generated by the Lorentz force along the radius between the two sliding contacts.

If the part at rest is connected to a load, then the EMF produces a current I. In the disk, the current I moves the charges along a radius between the two sliding contacts. These charges are subjected to the Lorentz force, which is transverse to the current, and applies in such a way that it opposes the mechanical force on the charges related to the rotation of the disc. This also results in a field B' opposite to B.



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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3038


Buy me some coffee
A Faraday generator can be synthesized in the form of two half-circuits connected together by sliding contacts, both of which are at least partially surrounded by a common magnetic field B.

Let us take as a reference one of the half parts, we will consider it at rest, and the other moving relatively to it.

The moving part, say here the disk, passes through the magnetic field, thus producing an EMF generated by the Lorentz force along the radius between the two sliding contacts.

If the part at rest is connected to a load, then the EMF produces a current I. In the disk, the current I moves the charges along a radius between the two sliding contacts. These charges are subjected to the Lorentz force, which is transverse to the current, and applies in such a way that it opposes the mechanical force on the charges related to the rotation of the disc. This also results in a field B' opposite to B.

Thank you for the explanation  O0


Brad


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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr
See GFT's explanation of the homopolar generator.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3038


Buy me some coffee
See GFT's explanation of the homopolar generator.

Who is GFT ?


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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
tExB=qr
GFT is Willie Johnson Jr.

He developed a complete unified theory based on gyroscopic force.  I refer to it in my own efforts.

Just do a site search.  He only made a few posts here.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
...
The proton is 1830 times heavier then electron so there ought to be some differences.
Definitely

I asked the question on a physics forum. It appears that the differences in inertia between electrons and protons can only be observed experimentally at optical frequencies and above. At RF frequencies, the time constants are too low compared to the speeds and enormous accelerations of both types of charges.

I also had some interesting information. In a dielectric like ferrites, atoms position themselves relative to each other because of the influence of their electronic clouds between them.
So when we think that Lorentz's force moves the electronic clouds in one direction, and the nucleus in the other, you think badly. In fact, whole atoms will also reposition themselves relative to each other, and then we understand much better why the current of positive charges can compensate for that of negative charges despite their different inertia, and why nothing is detected.



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

Posts: 235
We don't have the plans of either the TPU or the Kapanadze machine. The best method is therefore, in my opinion, to try to understand what the basic principle of operation might be.
Even if I don't think these two devices are overunity, it is possible that unusual effects may occur that surprise their builders.

All these devices show many coils that are clearly capacitively coupled, in addition to magnetic couplings, and simultaneously used with various frequencies. Could displacement currents in intercoil dielectrics cause unusual effects? The subject seems to me to have very little coverage in the academic literature.

It would join this thread. We notice that it is easy to pass a current through a dielectric, we obtain it between two plates, simply by applying a potential difference, it is the principle of the capacitor.
But have you tried to induce a current in a dielectric from the EMF of a variable magnetic field, and not from a potential difference?
Until today (maybe) I had tried and failed. For example, the immersion of the coil of an LC oscillator in water, a dielectric of high permeability (εr=80), shows no change when one would expect that the current induced in the water-dielectric would disturb either the amplitude or the frequency of the oscillator.
I only recently understood why. The EMF acts on both positive and negative charges, so on a loop, the symmetrical effects compensate each other perfectly, unlike the case of the capacitor where the displacement of charges in the dielectric is stopped at the plates of opposite polarities, creating asymmetry.

Could we then simulate this asymmetry by opposing two EMFs in two dielectric half-circuits, separated by two plates across which a voltage, such as that of a capacitor, would be recovered? See the attached schematic diagram (inductionInDielectric-Principle). Two U-shaped dielectrics are separated by two plates, and EMF of opposite direction are induced in each one, from two coils powered by currents of opposite direction. Each EMF is looped back through the diameter between plates (not shown in the diagram).
At the interface between the two dielectrics, where the displacement currents tend to oppose each other, the plates should recover a potential difference due to the opposition of the two EMFs.



I tried to highlight it experimentally, with a first rough experience. Two coils of about 100 turns of wire are laid over each half of a double U dielectric circuit (ferrite). Copper plates have been plated at the interface of the two dielectrics and are connected to the scope.
I inserted an aluminium foil connected to the ground (removed for the photo), between the coils and the ferrite, to prevent the probable electrical coupling between the coils and the plates.

The result seems positive. I'm clearly observing the signal on the monitor. If I change the direction of the current in a coil, the signal becomes 7 times weaker, but not zero because despite the aluminium screen, there is still a direct capacitive coupling between coils and plates (without the aluminium it is preponderant, we see almost no change).
There may still be experimental biases. A more convincing experiment remains to be done, I'm thinking about it.



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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
Could we then simulate this asymmetry by opposing two EMFs in two dielectric half-circuits, separated by two plates across which a voltage, such as that of a capacitor, would be recovered? See the attached schematic diagram (inductionInDielectric-Principle). Two U-shaped dielectrics are separated by two plates, and EMF of opposite direction are induced in each one, from two coils powered by currents of opposite direction. Each EMF is looped back through the diameter between plates (not shown in the diagram).
At the interface between the two dielectrics, where the displacement currents tend to oppose each other, the plates should recover a potential difference due to the opposition of the two EMFs.
Wouldn't the same effect occur at the dielectric between two wires of a bucking bifilar coil ?
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
What about a magnetized Fe hoop within a rotating magnetic field?  Can that field create bunching of the conduction electrons with those bunches driven round the hoop at the field rotation rate?  Those bunches will move at much greater speed than drift velocity, can this be used to good effect?  With that hoop passing through four toroidal cores having sequentially phased coil currents you can get similar rotating electron bunches (and hence also bunched electron magnets) creating magnets whirling at enormous speeds well beyond that obtainable mechanically.

Are these electron bunches influenced more by the B/H field or more by the A field  ...like in the Aharonov-Bohm effect ?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1069
Are these electron bunches influenced more by the B/H field or more by the A field like in the Aharonov-Bohm effect ?
The electrons bunch because they are spin polarised, they act like tiny magnets and therefore endure a force if within a B field spatial gradient.  They get attracted to the point in the Fe where the field is a maximum, where there is an induced magnetic pole.  Since that pole is moving so does the electron bunch.
Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1467
Here are fragments of a translation of a paper claiming, that only the A field is effective in influencing spin systems shielded inside matter.

Quotes:
"the scalar potential contribution is totally negligible as compared to the vector potential"
"the scalar interaction term is of no consequence"
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 235
The electrons bunch because they are spin polarised, they act like tiny magnets and therefore endure a force if within a B field spatial gradient.
...
Smudge

Hi Smudge,

Would you be aware of an homopolar generator based on this principle?


---------------------------
"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, 05:36:20