PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-09-22, 07:01:23
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What Are We Missing Here ?  (Read 1014 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Over the year's,it seems to me that we have only figured out how to produce !half! of the electrical power we should be able to produce for a given amount of work done.

What i mean to say is--we know how to get electrons moving through a circuit/conductor,and create the flow of a given value of current for a given amount of work. We know how to induce a voltage of a given magnitude. But, i think we are missing the !other! half of this energy we should have.

The electron travel's through a circuit and enter's the load,where it go's to work,and dose work on that load ,so as the load can perform work. But what dose the electron meet in that load?. As the load is a resistance to the flow of electron's,it means that the electrons are simply hitting slower electrons.

So now let's talk about the positron.
The positron is of course the same as the electron,but with a positive charge,where as the electron has a negative charge.So let's talk about DC here for a moment--let's say a 12 volt battery is our source. The electron flow is from the negative to the positive of the battery,where as(if we can find a way to generate them)the positron would flow from the positive to the negative.

Now lets think about this.
What would be the outcome of positrons flowing from the positive of our battery,and electrons flowing from the negative of our battery,and both meet at the load ?.

The way i see it ATM,we have 1 car going slow in one direction,and another car going faster traveling in the same direction,and just hitting the slower car up the rear end. What we need is two car's going the same speed,but in opposite direction's,and then colliding,where the collision takes place within the load.

Sorry for my rambling's,but i had to get it off my chest.
It just seems to me that we are so stuck with the electron,for no other reason other than !it came along first!,that we are totally missing or ignoring the equal and opposite to that electron that should also exist,and be able to be generated-just like the electron flow.

So how do we make a positive version of the electron ?.


Brad


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

Posts: 1210
The electron travel's through a circuit and enter's the load,where it go's to work,and dose work on that load ,so as the load can perform work. But what dose the electron meet in that load?. As the load is a resistance to the flow of electron's,it means that the electrons are simply hitting slower electrons.
That is not the accepted view.  Electrons are jiggling about at Fermi velocity so there is not really "slow" electrons.  And they don't hit each other because the Coulomb repulsion prevents that.  The electrons do hit the positive ions.  Hit is perhaps the wrong word to use since it is more like an interaction like an absorption.  Those positive ions are more or less stationary, their jiggling movement is much less than that of the free electrons.  But that interaction with the moving electrons that form the current is where they give up energy to the lattice ions to make them jiggle more, and that jiggling is heat.  Hotter means greater jiggle, or put the other way more jiggle means hotter.

Quote
It just seems to me that we are so stuck with the electron,for no other reason other than !it came along first!,that we are totally missing or ignoring the equal and opposite to that electron that should also exist,and be able to be generated-just like the electron flow.
If you had positrons they would not last very long within our conventional conductors.  To do what you suggest requires conductors made from anti-matter, that is atoms made not with positive protons but with negative protons.

Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3098
tExB=qr
You need a better method of inducing a current.

The attached chapter is what later became a large book on a new theory.

This chapter explains what electrons are doing in a generator. 

You can apply the principles to other forms of induction, provided you have the necessary forces.  One such force is gravity, which appeared in the book but was not evident when this chapter was written several years ago.

The author developed the theory into a complete unified theory, and is able to derive anything from something else.

If you see the gravity connection, you'll understand why there are "unknown factions" who want to keep this secret.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 483
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Thanks Grumpy!  Interesting reading.



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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Having a 3D printer makes things very easy to build,like coil formers of all kinds of shapes and sizes.
So maybe this thread could be for those !crazy! idea's--the one's you always wanted to try,but it was just to hard to put together.

I have one such crazy idea,and the former's and carrier are printing up now.

So it go's like this--
We have two coils on there own formers facing each other with a small gap between them.
So we send a current through coil A,which creates a magnetic field. This magnetic field will then induce a current flow in coil B(which has a load placed across it of course). The load is reflected back onto coil A due to coil B developing it's own magnetic field which apposes that which created it-coil A. But what if the magnetic field of coil B was blocked,and stopped from reacting with the magnetic field from coil A ? We know that they have achieved this mechanically,but can we do it electrically only?. If so,would coil B produce power without coil A also !feeling! the load that is placed on coil B ?. I guess my question is-->can we eliminate the CEMF acting upon coil A ?.

If we can do this,then we are home and hosed  O0

Like i said,we are missing something here,and we need to find what that something is.
So let's get all those crazy idea's out there,and build the thing's,and see what happens.
No good just having all those crazy idea's ,we need to see if they work.

I for one am happy to print up any idea some one may want to try,that dose not have a printer of there own.
Like the Wright brother's said--it's time to fly  :)


Brad


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 772
That is not the accepted view.  Electrons are jiggling about at Fermi velocity so there is not really "slow" electrons.  And they don't hit each other because the Coulomb repulsion prevents that.  The electrons do hit the positive ions.  Hit is perhaps the wrong word to use since it is more like an interaction like an absorption.  Those positive ions are more or less stationary, their jiggling movement is much less than that of the free electrons.  But that interaction with the moving electrons that form the current is where they give up energy to the lattice ions to make them jiggle more, and that jiggling is heat.  Hotter means greater jiggle, or put the other way more jiggle means hotter.
If you had positrons they would not last very long within our conventional conductors.  To do what you suggest requires conductors made from anti-matter, that is atoms made not with positive protons but with negative protons.

Smudge

Did anyone else watch the video posted by Grumpy that demonstrated electron flow does not induce a mag field  ? I can't remember anyone addressing that experiment here.

If electrons are flowing but there is no mag field, then how can their flow be the cause of current?
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3219
Brad
the 3D printers really are amazing gizzmo's....
in the hands of the curious and experienced , the skys the limit.

Jimboot
you have a link to Grumpy's vid ?

 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Did anyone else watch the video posted by Grumpy that demonstrated electron flow does not induce a mag field  ? I can't remember anyone addressing that experiment here.

If electrons are flowing but there is no mag field, then how can their flow be the cause of current?

The same as water can flow through pipe without pressure.
When the flow of water meets a resistance,a pressure will build,and the pipe will expand.
When the flow of electrons meets a resistance,a current form's,which creates the magnetic field.


Brad


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3098
tExB=qr
Did anyone else watch the video posted by Grumpy that demonstrated electron flow does not induce a mag field  ? I can't remember anyone addressing that experiment here.

If electrons are flowing but there is no mag field, then how can their flow be the cause of current?

I don't remember that video, but I will point out that metallic compass needles will respond to an electric field.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1210
You need a better method of inducing a current.

The attached chapter is what later became a large book on a new theory.

This chapter explains what electrons are doing in a generator. 

You can apply the principles to other forms of induction, provided you have the necessary forces.  One such force is gravity, which appeared in the book but was not evident when this chapter was written several years ago.

The author developed the theory into a complete unified theory, and is able to derive anything from something else.

If you see the gravity connection, you'll understand why there are "unknown factions" who want to keep this secret.
I've looked into that paper before and I don't follow his arguments.  His talk of active and passive electrons is nonsense, he completely ignores the positive ions that are rotating with his "active" electrons and thus his B field from those "active" electrons is negated, it is not there.  He makes no reference to the e/m ratio of the electron which makes his centripedal forces insignificant compared to the electomagnetic ones.  And like many people he thinks the Faraday disc homopolar generator is anomalous because it gives the same result if the magnet rotates with the disc because he hasn't grasped the fact that is is not the relative motion between the magnet and the disc that is important, it is the relative motion between the conduction electrons in the disc and the spinning/orbiting electrons in the magnet.  That relative motion is not affected by the magnet itself rotating at trivial speed compared to those internal spin and orbital speeds.  IMO the anomaly doesn't need to be explained by his nonsensical arguments.

Smudge
Smudge   
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3098
tExB=qr
His talk of active and passive electrons is nonsense, he completely ignores the positive ions that are rotating with his "active" electrons and thus his B field from those "active" electrons is negated, it is not there. 

Are the magnetic fields negated?
Two opposing magnetic fields, one free to move away.

If I place two opposing magnets near each other, they try to push each other away.  If one is free to move then it will move away.

I don't see how the B-field of the electrons is "negated".
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
I've looked into that paper before and I don't follow his arguments.  His talk of active and passive electrons is nonsense, he completely ignores the positive ions that are rotating with his "active" electrons and thus his B field from those "active" electrons is negated, it is not there.  He makes no reference to the e/m ratio of the electron which makes his centripedal forces insignificant compared to the electomagnetic ones.  And like many people he thinks the Faraday disc homopolar generator is anomalous because it gives the same result if the magnet rotates with the disc because he hasn't grasped the fact that is is not the relative motion between the magnet and the disc that is important, it is the relative motion between the conduction electrons in the disc and the spinning/orbiting electrons in the magnet.  That relative motion is not affected by the magnet itself rotating at trivial speed compared to those internal spin and orbital speeds.  IMO the anomaly doesn't need to be explained by his nonsensical arguments.

Smudge
Smudge

Smudge

What physical body is pushing against the rotating conductor to cause the backtorque when a load is placed across the homopolar generator ?.


Brad


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 772
Warning robot voice narration. Claiming current is not caused by the flow of electrons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHrOn2at8Ec
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1210
Are the magnetic fields negated?
Two opposing magnetic fields, one free to move away.

If I place two opposing magnets near each other, they try to push each other away.  If one is free to move then it will move away.

I don't see how the B-field of the electrons is "negated".
His active electrons going round his green loop, being within the conductor that is going round the green loop, have the positive ions also going with them around that loop. Thus they don't create his B field that he claims is at 90 degrees to the B field from the current flow. 
Smudge
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1210
Smudge

What physical body is pushing against the rotating conductor to cause the backtorque when a load is placed across the homopolar generator ?.


Brad
The radial current creates its own magnetic field and that field acts on all the tiny atomic magnetic dipoles (think of them as tiny magnets) to try to pull them in a circular motion.  Since they are bound within the magnet that back torque then applies to the magnet itself.  Drive radial current though the disc and the magnet will rotate, you have a homopolar motor.  Doesn't matter whether the disc is attached to the magnet or not.  If a generator can work as a motor it won't be OU.
Smudge
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
The radial current creates its own magnetic field and that field acts on all the tiny atomic magnetic dipoles (think of them as tiny magnets) to try to pull them in a circular motion.  Since they are bound within the magnet that back torque then applies to the magnet itself.  Drive radial current though the disc and the magnet will rotate, you have a homopolar motor.  Doesn't matter whether the disc is attached to the magnet or not.  If a generator can work as a motor it won't be OU.
Smudge

But the magnet is spinning with the disc.
What i want to know is,what physical body supports the back torque.
To have back torque,there must be a physical body which anchors this back torque.
For example--with a normal generator,the back torques physical anchor is the generators housing itself,which is also fixed to the frame to which the prime mover is bolted. With the Homopolar generator,the only physical part touching the disc that is anchored to the devices body is the outer and inner brushes.
The shaft,disc,and magnet all rotate together--one cannot lift one's self up of the ground by pulling on one's own bootlaces.


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Ok,so i have just finished printing up the 3 former's and base for the blocking coil(magnetic diode) experiment.
Coil's all wound and ready to go.
Tomorrow night we hit the workbench for some testing.

Loving these new fluro filament's,and they print very good as well  O0


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Ok,so i couldn't wait  ;D
Just finished some quick testing,and it looks very promising  O0

This was at very low power,where my driver coil was powered only by the FG,but i still got the result's i was hoping for. It seems from early testing that we can indeed make a solid state magnetic field diode  O0.

Tomorrow night i will set up the higher input power setup and re-test. But if tonight's results are anything to go by,we may have a winner here.

I have made the former wall to thick,but they will do for primary testing.
I will shoot a quick video tomorrow night,so as you can all follow what i'm doing here.


Brad.


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3098
tExB=qr
The radial current creates its own magnetic field and that field acts on all the tiny atomic magnetic dipoles (think of them as tiny magnets) to try to pull them in a circular motion.  Since they are bound within the magnet that back torque then applies to the magnet itself.  Drive radial current though the disc and the magnet will rotate, you have a homopolar motor.  Doesn't matter whether the disc is attached to the magnet or not.  If a generator can work as a motor it won't be OU.
Smudge

Are you referring to figure 26d?
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1210
Are you referring to figure 26d?
No, it is 26c.  He shows the hand cranked electrons going around the green loop, but it is the conductor that is hand cranked so the lattice ions also go round that green loop.  So his green B field doesn't exist.  Yes the conduction electrons are hand cranked to follow a circular path and if the generator is loaded then they must also move (at trivial drift velocity) parallel to the x axis so they actually follow a spiral path.  That is not precession.  So I find the his whole notion of precession motion to be complete nonsense.
Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3098
tExB=qr
Whe I re-read the description that goes with figure 26c, it sounds like he is saying that the electrons have a spiral motion as they travel around the conductor. This is shown as the B-field (green) flipping directions as it moves around the loop, and the B-field (blue) always points inward:

If we were to ride along with any of the active electrons we would find that in the zy current loop the B field (green) is always at right angles to the B field (blue).


Are you are saying that this B-field (green) is negated?

The definition of precession:
the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope.

(This pdf of the chapter is very old and may have changed in the printed book.  I'll have to compare the two and see.)

Perhaps precession is not the correct term, he goes on to state that: Juxtaposition of these two transverse currents (the green loop and the red loop)obligatorily sets the electrons into precession. (referring to the red and green current loops in the diagrams.
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 446
Hi Brad,

I am listening and curious how it goes.

Gyula

...
Just finished some quick testing,and it looks very promising  O0

This was at very low power,where my driver coil was powered only by the FG,but i still got the result's i was hoping for. It seems from early testing that we can indeed make a solid state magnetic field diode  O0.
...
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

I am listening and curious how it goes.

Gyula

Well Gyula,im done replicating everyone elses failures,and will just experimenting with my own crazy ideas from now on.

No more wasted time on things like Rick Fs ballony,as I'd much rather waste my time on the un-tried.

It would seem that if we can stop the CEMF from the secondary of a transformer,then the primary will not see the load placed on the secondary.  So, to achieve this,we need a magnetic field diode  O0
Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 446
Okay Brad, I understand and agree.

Gyula
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1210
Whe I re-read the description that goes with figure 26c, it sounds like he is saying that the electrons have a spiral motion as they travel around the conductor. This is shown as the B-field (green) flipping directions as it moves around the loop, and the B-field (blue) always points inward:
If you have electrons travelling round a circle they do indeed create a B field.  That happens in a solenoid.  But (a) the B field does not emanate from the electron path as depicted in his 26c and (b) it does not flip direction.  There would be a B field passing through that loop in a direction determined by which way the electrons travel, CW or CCW (but not in this case because that green circle is the neutral (equal numbers of positive and negative charges) conductor moving through space).  So his green B field is a figment of his incorrect perception of how a moving electron creates a B field. 
Quote
If we were to ride along with any of the active electrons we would find that in the zy current loop the B field (green) is always at right angles to the B field (blue).
His blue B field is also wrong he has it radial from the electron path.  That is utter nonsense

Quote
Are you are saying that this B-field (green) is negated?
I am saying it doesn't exist

Quote
The definition of precession:
the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope.
I am well aware of precessional motion

Quote
Perhaps precession is not the correct term, he goes on to state that: Juxtaposition of these two transverse currents (the green loop and the red loop)obligatorily sets the electrons into precession. (referring to the red and green current loops in the diagrams.
The green loop is not a current, it is just the circular motion of the conductor.  If you trace out the movement of the conduction electrons moving along the conductor they follow a spiral path through space.  Electrons have spin, and they do precess in the presence of a magnetic field at the Larmor frequency, and if you can get them all to precess in phase it is called Electron Spin Resonance (ESR).  But this is not what the guy is talking about.

Smudge
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-09-22, 07:01:23