PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 06:55:18
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Smudge's Papers  (Read 7307 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3189

I did some initial tests with the amplifier box (gizmo), but the zeroing potmeter made some clunky sounds, had a lot of end play and did not seem to react properly.

After opening up the box/pcb it turned out the potmeters back side was seperated from the front and some little broken off pieces were visible inside.
I will order a new "Bourns 1 Gang 10 Turn Rotary Wirewound Potentiometer" and replace it.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
I have posted the attached paper elsewhere, but I am re-posting it here for the benefit of all those researchers who have dabbled with BEMF spikes and found anomalous results.  Although written with the static field from a permanent magnet in mind, it could also apply to systems that do not have a permanent magnet (e.g. we all live within a static field from the Earth).  It requires a fast magnetic field transient to drive electron precessions into a “non-permitted” quantum state where anomalous results would be exhibited while the electrons return to their “permitted” state.  With our usual power sources (that are low impedance voltage sources) it is impossible to get fast rise of magnetic field since it is current that creates the field and for inductors a nanosecond rise time in voltage does not create a nanosecond rise time in current.  Where you do get a fast field transient is at the back end of a voltage pulse where voltage is switched off, and that area is ripe for investigation of the OU effect described.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
I thought some people may be interested in my LH Rule for visualizing how the Curl operator applied to the magnetic vector potential A creates the resultant magnetic B field.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Brian Ahern has just sent me an email about the Manelas device, summarising the pertinent features.
Quote
We have Arthur's original components, test data and conversational records:  They are:
1.   bifilar  spiral windings at 22 gauge
2.   SrFeOx billet (strong B-field, high resistance)
3.   billet wound with bifilar wire
4.   Test data;
5.    voltage versus time for 7 days- 30 watts with dips and 162 volts
6.   dips correlate with solar mass ejections
7.   six day light bulb test at 60 watts at 180 volts
8.   higher voltage gave much greater power
9.   Billet may be magnetostrictive -  may support scalar B-fields
10.   thermistor mounted on the billet cooled by 3 - 5 degrees C
11.   Manelas device #2 was not tested before his passing
12.   July 2012 device over charged the batteries correlating with a Nova explosion in our galaxy reported in Japan.
13.   Conversations:
14.   Unipolar pulses must have as fast a rise time as possible
15.   resonant frequency was ~ 130 kHz
16.   Spril 22 2012 - massive overcharging of Arthur's large battery system ( > 500 pounds of batteries -  supernova  considered as the source
17.   170 feet in length for each bifilar winding
18.   He referred to his device as  CFA  Cosmic Flux Amplifier
Our current model -_ energy comes from some entity like harvested neutrinos or scalar longitudinal waves  or etheric capture a la Donald Hotson

We know the energy output was real and bifilar windings induce scalar waves.
Very fast pulses is our immediate goal.
Billet cooling is the most straightforward data source
Cooling is expected from spins randomizing and realigning at resonance
REALIGNING IS A NEGATIVE ENTROPY CONDITION.
TEMP. =  dS/dU           According to Nobel Lauriate Norman Ramsey
so negative entropy results in cooling.

Higher voltage  showed higher power out put.


The correlation with solar mass ejections and Nova explosions, and the possibility that the energy comes from some entity like harvested neutrinos, has triggered the following thoughts..

I have long held the view that EM waves and gravity have a common origin where fundamental mass-less particles (like neutrinos) play their part in the creation of electric, magnetic, inertial and gravity forces on matter.  This thread is not the place to detail how this can be, but briefly all these forces can be explained by momentum exchange when such particles are absorbed then emitted from a matter particle such as an electron.  It is accepted that although neutrinos have zero rest-mass (and therefore travel through space at light velocity) they do have energy and momentum.  For a stable particle like an electron, for each neutrino absorbed by collision one must be emitted.  It only requires some internal time delay between absorption and emission for the electron to exhibit inertia, thus we have an explanation for inertial mass in terms of the number density of neutrinos in our part of space, the collision cross section (area) of the electron, that internal time delay and the known momentum of the neutrino.

It is also known that the neutrino has spin, which is a vector quantity separate from its velocity vector.  If we postulate that the electron emits its absorbed neutrinos, not in a direction determined by that from which it arrived, but in a direction determined by the arriving neutrino’s spin, we have an explanation for what constitutes an electric field (e.g. from another electron) where the neutrino spin vector determines the field direction, either parallel to or anti-parallel to the velocity.  It will be noted that this simple possibility accounts for the electric field effect travelling at light velocity, the electron’s property of charge and the force it endures (by momentum exchange) within an electric field.  When the source of an electric field (say an electron) is moving relative to another electron (or vice versa) then the arriving neutrinos do not have their spins aligned with their perceived (relative) velocity vector, there will be a small transverse component.  This then modifies the force direction when the neutrino is emitted, and that accounts for the magnetic force on the electron.

Of course for the electric or magnetic force to be recognisable it requires a stream of arriving neutrinos to all exhibit the appropriate spin alignment, and that is against the huge background density of neutrinos arriving from distant space having a multitude of alignments that appear random.  That random neutrino background, having no observable pattern, is the so-called flat-space of relativity.  As that background of arriving neutrinos has an average small transversivity of spin v. velocity vector, we then find that there is another force between matter particles related to that small transversivity.  This comes about because neutrinos emitted have zero transverse spin, so those emitted from nearby matter to reach our test particle will create a force on it that would otherwise not be there.  That force is towards the nearby matter, it is gravity.  The pattern of outward travelling neutrinos with zero transverse spin is the curved-space of relativity.

It may seem incredible that the neutrino could be the carrier for so many different forces, and it is likely that the true theory of everything will be far more complex than that described above, but this simple concept has much to recommend it.  And it could account for why the Manelas device exhibited a surge of performance associated with a surge of neutrinos.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Not sure of I posted this paper here on a Manelas topic, but here is is anyway.

Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
Thanks smudge I have no idea of the makeup of my billet but I will be experimenting with this. Are the t bearded vids of sweets experiments avail anywhere does anyone know edit: found it
« Last Edit: 2020-11-25, 12:13:52 by JimBoot »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
Brian Ahern’s presentation. He starts to discuss Manellas work ar 11:26 mark. https://youtu.be/0PS2v1kN1U8
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
I am off on vacation for the next week so won't be around.  You may have noticed my new avatar.  We took our great grandchildren to Madam Tussauds (waxworks) in London some time ago and I took the opportunity to stand alongside my friend Albert.  ;)

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Here is my latest paper, written in the hope that it may renew interest in the Marinov generator or similar work.  If you follow the arguments you may realize that the sudden acceleration of electrons as they are emitted from an electrode into a plasma or vacuum could also be a means for extracting energy from magnets.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
In the Van de Graaff machine (you mentioned "Wimshurst" in your paper but I think it was about the Van de Graaf generator), the belt is not conducting. The electrons move with the belt because they are captive.
With a conductive belt (fig.5) or with the slip ring (fig.6), the free electrons are not bound, they will not be driven by the belt but will continue at the same speed when they pass from the sliding contact to the belt. There will be no acceleration, the current will remain constant everywhere and so will the drift velocity.  The speed of the electrons will only be changed relative to the moving belt, not relative to the fixed observer who sees the current I.
This idea of a "static E field with non zero closed integral" (fig.2) is certainly interesting but imho it will not be possible to demonstrate it with the proposed experimental setup. I'm thinking if alternatives are possible.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
In the Van de Graaff machine (you mentioned "Wimshurst" in your paper but I think it was about the Van de Graaf generator), the belt is not conducting. The electrons move with the belt because they are captive.
Ooops! Yes, that was a senior moment.
Quote
With a conductive belt (fig.5) or with the slip ring (fig.6), the free electrons are not bound, they will not be driven by the belt but will continue at the same speed when they pass from the sliding contact to the belt. There will be no acceleration, the current will remain constant everywhere and so will the drift velocity.  The speed of the electrons will only be changed relative to the moving belt, not relative to the fixed observer who sees the current I.
Yes the fixed observer will see the current I, and he will also see that current split, half going round say the top half of the slip ring and the other going round the bottom half.  Within the slip ring the electrons travel at trivial drift velocity relative to the ions, but those ions are traveling at the slip ring circumferential velocity which is not trivial.  The differential between ion velocity and electron velocity determines the current.  One half of the slip ring has electrons travelling at slip ring velocity plus trivial drift velocity, the other half has electrons traveling at slip ring velocity minus trivial drift velocity.  Electrons jumping from brush to slip ring have to accelerate up to slip ring speed else they would represent a current that is not I.
Quote
This idea of a "static E field with non zero closed integral" (fig.2) is certainly interesting but imho it will not be possible to demonstrate it with the proposed experimental setup.
Imho that is because your perception is wrong.
Quote
I'm thinking if alternatives are possible.
Good, once you start from the premise that such a non zero closed integral is possible it should lead to other possibilities.  I am already looking at free running magnet motors from this perspective that then tells us where their energy comes from.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
@Smudge

Free electrons are extremely mobile in metals. The force provided by a current generator will be much higher than the one linked to the "friction" of the free electrons with the crystal lattice which would drag them into the rotating ring.
For me the rotation of the ring will have a negligible effect, the current generator alone will almost completely drive the free electrons.
I guess that you think the opposite and that this is what separates our points of view.

I'm going to see if the literature tells us the order of magnitude of the force that a free electron would experience when a conductor starts to move.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
@Smudge

Free electrons are extremely mobile in metals.
Yes they dance about at Fermi velocities, but they don't move very far unless some E field drags them along, and then for practical currents they only move on aggregate at very low velocities, say 1 mm/S within a stationary conductor.  If the conductor is moving along its length axis at say 10 m/S while still carrying that 1 mm/S current then the electrons are moving at 10.001 m/S while the lattice moves at 10 m/S.   In jumping from stationary brush to moving conductor the 1 mm/S electrons cannot maintain that velocity within the lattice else it would represent a reverse current of 10,000 times magnitude.  It will take movement over a number of lattice dimensions before the arriving electrons reduce their velocity to 10.001 m/S to settle within the lattice, but that still represents an acceleration.  I claim that acceleration will create local E fields that induce into both the moving lattice (where it appears as a deceleration) and outside in the non moving frame.

Quote
I'm going to see if the literature tells us the order of magnitude of the force that a free electron would experience when a conductor starts to move.

Isn't that associated with  electron inertia that already explains the Barnett Effect and the Einstein-de-Haas Effect?  And I have a feeling that someone discovered that a solenoid under angular acceleration about its axis develops an induced voltage but I can't recall who it was.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
@Smudge

Being in discussion on another forum about the radiation of the electron during its acceleration, a contributor made this interesting point which joins our subject by confirming the idea of the same effect that a vector potential or electrostatic can have, whether its gradient is spatial or temporal:

(translation)
"Let be a static force field F(x,t) = F(x) in a reference frame R.
In a reference frame R' animated by a velocity v with respect to R, we have the following transformations :
x = x' + v t'
t = t'
if ∂F/∂t = 0 in R, in R' we have :
∂F/∂t' = ∂F/∂x * ∂x/∂t' + ∂F/∂t * ∂t/∂t' = v.∇F + 0
So if a field is spatially variable and static in time it automatically becomes time variable in another reference frame. But beware, in the framework of Galilean relativity the reciprocal is not true, namely that a field variable in time and static in space will remain static in any other reference frame:
If F(x,t) = F(t)
∂F/∂x' = ∂F/∂x * ∂x/∂x' + ∂F/∂t . ∂t/∂x' = 0 + 0 = 0 !!!!
It is on this precise point that special relativity totally changes the deal, because contrary to Galilean kinematics a field variable in time and static in space becomes automatically variable in space from another reference frame:
F(x,t) = F(t)
x = γ (x' + v t')
t = γ (t' + v x')
Here we put c = 1 to simplify the equations.
∂F/∂x' = ∂F/∂x * ∂x/∂x' + ∂F/∂t * ∂t/∂x' = 0 + γ.v . ∂F/∂t
In summary, in a relativistic framework, by change of reference frame a static gradient becomes a dynamic field, and a dynamic field in space becomes a gradient.
In other words, the variation of a quantity in space differs physically from its variation in time only from a descriptive point of view under another reference frame. If a gradient produces a force that is proportional to it (such as the electrostatic potential) its variation in time must produce a rigorously equivalent force that must also be proportional to it, this by direct application of the principle of relativity.
"

So we could well generate a current thanks to a spatial gradient of the vector potential or of the electrostatic potential, as with its temporal gradient, but only relativistic analysis allows us to affirm this (not Galilean). Now that this possibility that you also assert is confirmed by relativity, it remains to find out how (your proposal is a way) and if it would allow to extract a new source of energy.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
Yes they dance about at Fermi velocities, but they don't move very far unless some E field drags them along, and then for practical currents they only move on aggregate at very low velocities, say 1 mm/S within a stationary conductor.  If the conductor is moving along its length axis at say 10 m/S while still carrying that 1 mm/S current then the electrons are moving at 10.001 m/S while the lattice moves at 10 m/S.   In jumping from stationary brush to moving conductor the 1 mm/S electrons cannot maintain that velocity within the lattice else it would represent a reverse current of 10,000 times magnitude.  It will take movement over a number of lattice dimensions before the arriving electrons reduce their velocity to 10.001 m/S to settle within the lattice, but that still represents an acceleration.  I claim that acceleration will create local E fields that induce into both the moving lattice (where it appears as a deceleration) and outside in the non moving frame.

Isn't that associated with  electron inertia that already explains the Barnett Effect and the Einstein-de-Haas Effect?  And I have a feeling that someone discovered that a solenoid under angular acceleration about its axis develops an induced voltage but I can't recall who it was.

Smudge

You have convinced me that electrons undergo acceleration.  Only the current remains constant, not the speed of the electrons.

I still have an objection. If we take figure 6, with the ring rotating clockwise, the electrons arriving through the left contact will be accelerated in the ring, but only towards the upper half of the ring.
The electrons arriving from the lower half of the ring will be decelerated as they exit towards the same sliding contact.
Won't their effects cancel each other out?



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
You have convinced me that electrons undergo acceleration.  Only the current remains constant, not the speed of the electrons.

I still have an objection. If we take figure 6, with the ring rotating clockwise, the electrons arriving through the left contact will be accelerated in the ring, but only towards the upper half of the ring.
Yes
Quote
The electrons arriving from the lower half of the ring will be decelerated as they exit towards the same sliding contact.
I don't follow you, there are no electrons exiting there, we don't have a reversed current.  (Well strictly speaking there will be Fermi velocity electrons jumping back and forth across the sliding contact that do cancel out).  Current flowing electrons exit at the other side of the ring and there they do endure a deceleration.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
We don't have a reverse current but we have reverse electrons.

Indeed the current being the passage of a certain number of charges per unit of time, the acceleration and then the higher speed of the electrons in the upper half of the ring, because of its rotation entraining them, makes that we have less charges for the same current.
But in the lower part, it is the opposite. The electrons arrive quickly to the left electrode, they must then slow down, so that the current that comes out is made of more electrons, but going less quickly.
In other words, in the lower part, the rotation of the ring drives the electrons in the opposite direction of what the external current would impose if there was no rotation. The neutrality of the whole circuit and the constancy of the current implies that electrons in the lower part slow down when they arrive at the left electrode (otherwise they could not be accelerated anymore since they would already be at the fast speed).


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
Did I miss something?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Did I miss something?
No.  I don't accept your argument so I think we must agree to disagree.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
To know if we agree or not, we must understand each other.

Do you agree that the same current can be made of a large flow of slow electrons or a small flow of fast electrons?

If so, and we assume that we have the same current in the upper half of the ring as in the lower half, then if the electrons accelerate to the right when entering the upper half of the circuit because of the linear velocity of the ring to the right, they must also decelerate in the lower half of the circuit since the linear velocity of the ring is to the left.

The drift velocity of the electrons in the upper half is faster than in the lower half because their movement is in the same direction as the ring at the top, and in the opposite direction at the bottom.
If they accelerate at the top to reach the fast speed, then they must decelerate at the bottom to reach the slow speed. The situation is symmetrical, and the effect of deceleration cancels out the effect of acceleration.

What exactly do you disagree with?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
To know if we agree or not, we must understand each other.

Do you agree that the same current can be made of a large flow of slow electrons or a small flow of fast electrons?
Yes, but in this experiment we are dealing with electron flow in conductors so there are no fast electrons, it is always a large flow of slow electrons.

Quote
If so, and we assume that we have the same current in the upper half of the ring as in the lower half, then if the electrons accelerate to the right when entering the upper half of the circuit because of the linear velocity of the ring to the right, they must also decelerate in the lower half of the circuit since the linear velocity of the ring is to the left.

That makes no sense.  When you say the upper half of the ring then the brushes must be at the left and the right.   Then electrons entering from the left get accelerated upwards for CW rotation.  Like blue cars entering a motorway ring.  But  the continuous stream of red and blue vehicles already on the motorway travelling in compact formation have to adjust to allow the volume density of cars to remain the same.  So the blue cars around the top half of the ring have to travel slightly faster than the red cars there to make room for the new blue intruders, and those travelling around the bottom half have to travel slightly slower than the red cars there.   The differential between the red and blue car velocities in each half of the ring is the drift velocity of the blue cars.  Note that the drift velocity for both the top and bottom halves is to the right.  Note also that all the blue cars entering the ring accelerate in the same direction, and those leaving the ring decelerate in the same direction.

Smudge
   
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-21, 06:55:18