PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-22, 10:41:40
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] 3
Author Topic: The interesting case of magnetic induction due to a Capacitor.  (Read 3150 times)
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Well I have no objection to a violation of Newton's action-reaction laws since Newton's laws are wrong (I played with gyroscopes many years ago and even corresponded with Prof Eric Laithwaite.  Built a forced precession machine that should have shown weight reduction and didn't.  Came to the conclusion that inertia is not an internal property of a body.  Certainly a body has some property that determines its inertial mass (like collision cross section against virtual particles) but the actual value of that mass depends also upon the properties of the space in which the body sits (like virtual particle density and momentum) whereby inertial force come from momentum exchange with those space particles, hence is seen as an external force not the stupid "resisting change of motion" nonsense.)   

I don't see that the experiment verifies that at all.  In my opinion those L shaped sheets of copper form a closed current loop (with displacement current across the gap) that is a large electromagnet with square cross section.  That has a square pole face toward the beholder.  The small PM will be drawn into the that electromagnet or force away by classical magnetic force and is not a valid experiment for determining Maxwell v. Weber.  The author seems to have completely disregarded the current flow in the vertical sections of copper sheet and their effect on the magnet.

Smudge

That's true considering the whole circuit the magnet either will be pushed in or out of this square circuit. But the force is OPPESITE to what the maxwell equations predict, see attached. I mean if the quantity was different then that could probably be written off as an measurement error but a flipped sign is usually an indication of a fundamental difference.

I don't want to focus too much on Weber's electrodynamics either it is merely a vehicle to indeed show there is a force that is flipped. I come to this by pure intuition and experimentation as well not from a mathematical point of view.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Then how do you explain that inertia does not depend on the geometry?
If it's a question of cross section, the inertia of a moving disk should be lower if it moves along its plane than transversely.
You are using cross section in the usual macro world.  I deliberately said collision cross section that is a term used in particle physics, and applies to particles not whole lumps of matter.  I was really talking about the inertial mass of fundamental particles that possess what we call mass.  To expand on inertia being an external force, if you draw the Coriolis forces on the mass particles of a precessing gyroscope you have force vectors pointing out into space.  In any other branch of physics (such as an electron moving in a magnetic field) forces depicted thus would be recognized as an external force on the particle.  It is only our (incorrect) teaching that has instilled into our brains the incorrect Newtonian viewpoint.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
That's true considering the whole circuit the magnet either will be pushed in or out of this square circuit. But the force is OPPESITE to what the maxwell equations predict, see attached. I mean if the quantity was different then that could probably be written off as an measurement error but a flipped sign is usually an indication of a fundamental difference.
It may be opposite to what Maxwell's equations predict as derived by Kohn's tortuous math, but it is not opposite to what would be expected based on the force between the poles of the PM and the poles of the square EM.  If as you say Kohn's Maxwell math predicts the opposite of what is expected then I suspect his derivation is faulty.  I can't really accept that the difference between Weber and Maxwell will produce the same magnitude but a reverse effect, it should only predict a small angular offset or a small change of magnitude.  I am not clever enough to delve into Kohn's math to find the error.

Smudge
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
At the end of the day only experimental proof matters.

I have put forward enough information so far to at least get some experimenteers going.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
At the end of the day only experimental proof matters.

I have put forward enough information so far to at least get some experimenteers going.

Alas I am not able to do experiments.  And with respect I think you would get a more favorable response if you provided more details of the experiment(s) you propose so that people can create them.  The sketches of coils and capacitor plates you have provided to explain the background theory is in my opinion not enough.  I think people would like details of actual coils, sizes number of turns, wire gauge, layout etc. along with a block diagram of equipment and connections and what to look for or measure.  As a matter of interest are you doing any experiments yourself?

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
A theory to be verified experimentally is not a proposed setup, it is an idea of principle. To work with someone who presents a theoretical idea, the idea has to be expressed in a rigorous, preferably mathematical way, and presenting quantified expected effects. Or if I am faced with another experimenter who has an idea but it is poorly formalized, I could also participate because the person know the artefacts and all the subtleties of "real life" in terms of experimentation, and he is really working. Otherwise, usually a childish boast from a Tesla apprentice who flatters his ego by wanting to believe in his genius without getting tired, it's a waste of time.


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

Posts: 26
Alas I am not able to do experiments.  And with respect I think you would get a more favorable response if you provided more details of the experiment(s) you propose so that people can create them.  The sketches of coils and capacitor plates you have provided to explain the background theory is in my opinion not enough.  I think people would like details of actual coils, sizes number of turns, wire gauge, layout etc. along with a block diagram of equipment and connections and what to look for or measure.  As a matter of interest are you doing any experiments yourself?

Smudge

Currently I'm not and it will take a while before I can do this, there is also a steep learning curve when it comes to high frequency stuff.  But the design shown in the first post is what I will aim for. The reason there is no "magic" setup is that once you understand the reasoning behind it you can literally have dozens of design variations. Anything where a charge moves towards a current carrying wire and stops before it crosses it should be a valid experiment.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3582
Sorry to interrupt

Please remove if inappropriate

broli
If you had the equipment and skill set ( familiarity and comfy at the HV bench)

What would your experiment look like ( and presumably what would you expect to see?)?

IMO a good format as Cyril’s suggestion ... block schematic etc etc

Again please remove if ....  ( for any reason

Respectfully
Chet

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1996
broli
Quote
At the end of the day only experimental proof matters.

I have found it to be a duel edged sword...

Experiments mean little unless we have some kind of theory or direction and theory in itself is often misleading. My best results initially leading to understanding free energy came out of nowhere. I was reading some literature and I got this weird transformer idea in my head which was strange because I didn't know what would happen. Conventional theory suggested nothing extraordinary should happen however I understand the theory well enough to understand this arrangement was different. So I built it and all hell broke loose, lol.

This is the duality of perception often found in research (knowledge) and invention(building proof). Having enough knowledge and experience to understand what should happen yet being open minded enough to recognize a contradiction when we see one and following through with experiments. For myself it is cyclic, I research for quite a while to imagine new theories then go on a building spree doing as many experiments as I can. As Tesla implied, a good idea takes time to evolve and we can work though the problems in our head. Once the idea is refined to the point we think it holds merit then we must build it to see what actually happens then make corrections to our theory if needed. 

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 185
Broli, I'm not sure if this was the source for your thinking or if it is just a neat synchronicity,
I thought it worth posting as it's directly related to the diagrams in your earlier posts.  O0

http://www.free-energy-info.com/VladimirUtkin.pdf


---------------------------
When you say something is impossible, you have made it impossible
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Broli, I'm not sure if this was the source for your thinking or if it is just a neat synchronicity,
I thought it worth posting as it's directly related to the diagrams in your earlier posts.  O0

http://www.free-energy-info.com/VladimirUtkin.pdf

Reiyuki, I have not come across this but this touches so many things of what I'm trying to put forward here that it's very intriguing. I want to avoid the the way the author is trying to link EVERYTHING related to OU to a single idea but I do find it very peculiar how all these alleged OU devices share a similar premise, namely open asymmetrical capacitors near a coil  :). My hope is to reduce this idea to it's very basic very simple core and build a step wise experiment to prove step by step that the logic I have actually pans out. When you can show tha basic concept you can expand on that to scale and improve it. I have no OU claim...yet.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Attached is the simplest configuration I can imagine to start experimenting with. If this experiment fails and the predicted waveform is not seen on the scope then the whole premise of this thread is wrong.

Please note that parasitic coupling on the coil to ground should be avoided as much as possible to not skew the results.
« Last Edit: 2021-05-11, 18:23:17 by broli »
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 185
My hope is to reduce this idea to it's very basic very simple core and build a step wise experiment to prove step by step that the logic I have actually pans out.

This is a great method IMHO.  Better to build a simple Wright Bros plane that everyone can understand than an indecipherable 747.  It doesn't even have to be COP>1, as long as it demonstrates a simple effect that cannot be well explained by conventional means.
Please be aware that the process has to have some level of required complexity, otherwise there would be far more people stumbling on success.
'Targeted tinkering' may be the best protocol, especially early-on in order to help build the skill-set and understanding. O0
« Last Edit: 2021-05-12, 03:44:21 by Reiyuki »


---------------------------
When you say something is impossible, you have made it impossible
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
This is a great method IMHO.  Better to build a simple Wright Bros plane that everyone can understand than an indecipherable 747.  It doesn't even have to be COP>1, as long as it demonstrates a simple effect that cannot be well explained by conventional means.
... O0

    Well said!  I've said the same thing regarding various LENR experiments - many of which are extremely complex, including high-pressure hydrogen, vacuum systems, high-temperatures, etc.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2382
In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself,
Yes, unless he finds an inconsistency in these laws.

it would be like saying that you can perfectly assemble the pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle in a special way that will give a coherent but different picture from the one on the box.
The probability of this feat increases with the number of the pieces.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2382
However if we read Dewy Larsons work in the lab, he discovered a missing negative sign in Einsteins works.
Do you accept all of Larson's conclusions ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2382
Attached is the simplest configuration I can imagine to start experimenting with. If this experiment fails and the predicted waveform is not seen on the scope then the whole premise of this thread is wrong.

Please note that parasitic coupling on the coil to ground should be avoided as much as possible to not skew the results.
The ground will act as the second plate of the capacitor whether I want it or not and that makes this open-ended experiment impractical and dangerous for the scope, ...just like you were implying in your last sentence.
Can you redesign this experiment so BOTH plates of the capacitor are deliberately included in it as two isolated metal coaxial tubes ?
« Last Edit: 2021-05-13, 18:05:54 by verpies »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1996
F6FLT
Quote
In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself,

There called theories for a reason and physics is constantly proving old theories everyone said could never be broken wrong. It's actually kind of comical because throughout our history every generation claimed there theory must be the correct one and yet none to my knowledge has withstood the test of time. All were absolutely convinced there was no conceivable way they could be wrong... and yet they were.

There is a lesson here...

It all comes down to perspective and I see many thinking on the wrong generally materialistic level. Understand what we see as material is only 1% matter moving about in 99% free space full of EM waves. It's not material, more like a fog of particles which carry an electric field moving so fast they appear to be in every position within there sphere of influence at once. Knowing this it would be easy for me to mislead broli and most here that I could induce the coil in his experiment with a capacitor plate but not as most perceive it.

What is induction?, contrary to popular belief it's still a "spooky action at a distance" because the nonsensical notion that it's simply a field change doesn't hold water. This is true because nobody can explain what a field is thus the line of reason breaks down before it has even started.

Follow the line of reason...
Something effected something else from a distance>>>how did it effect the something through a distance?>>> it was a field>>> what is a field?>>>does not compute !@#$%^.

Ergo the obvious problem within this line of reason is that we cannot replace a lack of understanding with an ambiguous term. If this was the case every time someone asked me a question I cannot answer I could just say "munchkinwalkinunderdabridge" or "wassupgangdarooster" or any other absurd term I could think of to deflect. 

So it comes full circle back to intent and it's easy to explain how I could mislead broli or anyone in this experiment based on my knowledge of the art. I would use his HV source but store a great deal of energy in a capacitor first. Next I would discharge said energy at the highest magnitude in the smallest time frame to dislodge charged particles on the surface of the capacitor plate, a charge matrix, in the most violent manner I could to produce radiant matter(radiant...proceeding from a center outward) to induce his coil. For all intensive purposes he would perceive that in fact induction must have occurred and all his questionable measuring devices would confirm this however... it would not be accurate nor true.

It would seem to me this supposed foundation of physics many would suppose to stand upon is not structurally sound in any sense of the word. In fact it is fluid not unlike everything we know... in a perpetual state of change.

Regards
AC




---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
The ground will act as the second plate of the capacitor whether I want it or not and that makes this open-ended experiment impractical and dangerous for the scope, ...just like you were implying in your last sentence.
Can you redesign this experiment so BOTH plates of the capacitor are deliberately included in it as two isolated metal coaxial tubes ?

Hey Verpies, yes this is fine, as long as there is an appreciable distance between the two plates so the returning charges on the other plate don't affect the coil (and negate the effect) it's fine. Below are 2 other designs where there is a "return" plate.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1996
Broli

To get this straight...

You suppose that the weak magnetic force some how miraculously imparts itself through a dimension you know it cannot for reasons you cannot explain.

It just boggles my mind to think some people think people like myself and others have not been down this road and already proven what is involved. More so that the variation of effects is so wide spread that to presume one effect dominates is nonsensical. As I said, anyone can easily prove a radiant charge effect which leaves your notions with respect to capacitance wanting so why go there...

Begging others advice cannot help your lack of reasoning nor mine and we stand on our own justification or we stand on nothing, it's that simple...

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Broli

To get this straight...

You suppose that the weak magnetic force some how miraculously imparts itself through a dimension you know it cannot for reasons you cannot explain.

It just boggles my mind to think some people think people like myself and others have not been down this road and already proven what is involved. More so that the variation of effects is so wide spread that to presume one effect dominates is nonsensical. As I said, anyone can easily prove a radiant charge effect which leaves your notions with respect to capacitance wanting so why go there...

Begging others advice cannot help your lack of reasoning nor mine and we stand on our own justification or we stand on nothing, it's that simple...

Regards
AC

Hey AC, I always tend to be very careful as to not to engage in discussions where ego takes over the matter of subject. It's a human innate nature to do so but from personal experiences I have found ego is the most useless human property we own, it brings a great deal of conflict, anger and frustration. It becomes useful when you are trying to survive being chased by a tiger in the jungle.

My concepts or ideas I have put forward may look whimsical or childish to some due to their own experiences and knowledge (which is essentially the ego) but if we engage in belittling discussions and rants how are we any different from the "scientific" community which berates anyone who is proposing or suggesting ideas that go against the grain? As far as I can see the only large scale commercial "Free Energy" devices used in the world right now are still solar panels and wind turbines.

Besides I have no shame in begging people for advice or anything else if it means my understanding and knowledge would progress. My own ego is worthless when it comes to that.

But I digress, no matter how controversial it seems be to put a coil near a capacitor I still beg people to see what would happen if they do so  :).

I just wanted to perhaps remark on the technical side of things. Discharging or charging capacitors violently is definitely an OU crowd favorite as Tesla liked to talk about it a lot. However ZPE, Radiant energy, Lord Shiva chakra energy, Spaghetti monster energy aside. At the very basic, how else can you drive large currents into a capacitor that is in the picofarad range? The frequency or high voltage of the proposed experiment is no magical fairy dust to obtain some unique property, the only reason I am suggesting it is to motivate any kind of current to flow. I mean I would be very happy if I could construct a 1 Farad open capacitor that I can drive 100's of Amps through with a 1HZ frequency. Nature does not sadly like open capacitors to have high capacitance.
« Last Edit: 2021-05-12, 11:24:26 by broli »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 714
There called theories for a reason and physics is constantly proving old theories everyone said could never be broken wrong. ...

Imho this is a complete misunderstanding. The old theories are still correct. Why? Because they correctly described the observations up to the precision of the measurements that we are able to make at a given time, and they will always do so.

If new phenomena are not taken into account, if at a certain level of decimals or in a new field the theory deviates from the measurements (which was the case of Newtonian mechanics with the perihelion of Mercury), then it is necessary to restrict its field of application and find a new theory.
This is what happened with Newtonian mechanics. Relativity showed that it was insufficient under certain conditions (high gravity field or extremely high speed), but contrary to what you say, this does not make Newtonian mechanics a "wrong" theory. It is still valid and largely sufficient in most cases.

A theory is made to explain what is observed. When it succeeds to a certain degree of accuracy, it will always succeed to that degree, so it will always remain "right" to that degree of accuracy. If there is nothing new to observe, no new theory is necessary, unless by a stroke of genius, a new theory can simplify the old one or encompass several of them.

In the last 30 years, I have not seen a single phenomenon that an alternative theory would explain and that the academic theories would not explain.
To talk about a theory in free energy is completely meaningless. We can certainly make hypotheses to develop experiments and obtain new phenomena, but as long as we don't observe and measure anything new, a new theory is useless, since we can't verify it against the observations whereas it is made to explain them.



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

Posts: 5
Sorry
« Last Edit: 2021-05-12, 17:07:53 by Alvaro CS »
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Guys can we please keep the focus on the original topic. If you are willing to help with an experiment that's great but please don't derail the thread.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Perhaps to push things along. I'm willing to give a small compensation to anyone who is willing to help perform said experiments. A lot of people already have these materials or circuits laying around and it would probably cost me more to get to that level so it would be a win win situation.
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-22, 10:41:40