PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 03:24:32
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: The interesting case of magnetic induction due to a Capacitor.  (Read 3407 times)
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
I created a thread on OU.com about this here: https://overunity.com/18852/a-solid-state-homopolar-motor/msg557375/#new

But there was very little interaction besides from Smudge. I'm hoping this place will lead to more interesting discussions. So basically after years of playing with homopolar motors and generators I came to the conclusions that the asymmetric nature of a capacitor and it's "displacement" current could potentially be used to induce an EMF without any back EMF on the source. I have shared numerous designs on the above forum post but let me share a very simplified design here.

Attached you see a capacitor where a coil has been wound around one plate. Now when you apply an AC current to the capacitor according to classical EM theory there should be no EMF generated in the capacitor. I have big HUNCH that an EMF can also only be detected IF there is a DC bias going in the coil, in essence emulating a magnet in a homopolar motor. In this case the "motor" part becomes the coil which is not mechanically torqued but electrically resulting in an induced current.

There are some caveats but will digress to not overload the initial post.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Hi Broli, welcome.

Why does the coil need to be around one of the plates as opposed to being in the middle?

What have your experiments shown with your setup?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Hi Broli, welcome.

Why does the coil need to be around one of the plates as opposed to being in the middle?

What have your experiments shown with your setup?

That's an excellent question. The asymmetry is important. The key here is to MAXIMIZE movement of charge towards the edges of the coil and they may NOT cross the edge of the coil, anything that crosses it will have the opposite effect negating the proposed induction. Also any charge that moves away from the edge of the the coils will have a negating effect as well. This is why the the following points are important:
  • Coil needs to be around the edge of one plate only or else all forces negate
  • A DC bias in the coil should be needed to have a magnetic field in place to affect the moving charges in the capacitor
  • As soon as the capacitor reaches maximum charge and the charges want to oscillate back, ALL energy in the coil must be dumped to avoid losing this gained energy as moving charge back will have the opposite effect.

These points are shown in the attached drawing. You see the coil in orange and a capacitor plate which has 4 spokes (to minimize the rotating current caused by the blue force). As charge moves radially outward towards the coil they are affected due to the Lorentz force however the hypothesis here is that THEY also affect the coil in the same but opposite torqueing way. And when they start to move away from the coil edge as drawn on the right side they will oppose the circulating DC bias current thus no total gain was made. Hence why all the energy in the coil needs to be dumped before the charge starts moving back.

The implications of this could be profound if confirmed as this leads to so many other designs and explains a lot of "claimed" overunity devices.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 185
Thanks Broli :)

Posting a slightly modified version.  As long as it's isolated+not grounded, an HV charge might be applied to the wire loops themselves instead of relying on separate capacitor plates.

In this setup, the wire loops conceivably act as both as inductor and as capacitor.
 :D



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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
That's an excellent question. The asymmetry is important. The key here is to MAXIMIZE movement of charge towards the edges of the coil and they may NOT cross the edge of the coil, anything that crosses it will have the opposite effect negating the proposed induction. Also any charge that moves away from the edge of the the coils will have a negating effect as well. This is why the the following points are important:
  • Coil needs to be around the edge of one plate only or else all forces negate
  • A DC bias in the coil should be needed to have a magnetic field in place to affect the moving charges in the capacitor
  • As soon as the capacitor reaches maximum charge and the charges want to oscillate back, ALL energy in the coil must be dumped to avoid losing this gained energy as moving charge back will have the opposite effect.

These points are shown in the attached drawing. You see the coil in orange and a capacitor plate which has 4 spokes (to minimize the rotating current caused by the blue force). As charge moves radially outward towards the coil they are affected due to the Lorentz force however the hypothesis here is that THEY also affect the coil in the same but opposite torqueing way. And when they start to move away from the coil edge as drawn on the right side they will oppose the circulating DC bias current thus no total gain was made. Hence why all the energy in the coil needs to be dumped before the charge starts moving back.

The implications of this could be profound if confirmed as this leads to so many other designs and explains a lot of "claimed" overunity devices.
Hi broli
I think it would be helpful if you labelled your arrows to identify whether they depict current (or electron flow) or force.  If I read you correctly you have a classical homopolar motor except the radial current does not go through brushes at the rim of the disc but charges the disc capacitance.  To get rotation in a given direction the coil current needs to be reversed during capacitance discharge.   So feeding the capacitance and the coils with the correctly phased RF you will have a motor.  I can't see where overunity comes into this.
Smudge
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Thanks Broli :)

Posting a slightly modified version.  As long as it's isolated+not grounded, an HV charge might be applied to the wire loops themselves instead of relying on separate capacitor plates.

In this setup, the wire loops conceivably act as both as inductor and as capacitor.
 :D


Hey Reiyuki, this is certainly possible as well, obviously a higher capacitance would be better to preferably stay below the RF domain to keep radiation loses low and a whole slew of other effects. But the open nature of the capacitor prevents high capacitances unless someone has a creative idea to fix that. Also remember the only part that would push energy into the system is when charge is moving towards the coil, when it moves back again this energy will be negated and hence before it moves back all this energy must be captured.

Hi broli
I think it would be helpful if you labelled your arrows to identify whether they depict current (or electron flow) or force.  If I read you correctly you have a classical homopolar motor except the radial current does not go through brushes at the rim of the disc but charges the disc capacitance.  To get rotation in a given direction the coil current needs to be reversed during capacitance discharge.   So feeding the capacitance and the coils with the correctly phased RF you will have a motor.  I can't see where overunity comes into this.
Smudge

Hey Smudge, I added the symbols to the attached drawing.

What you also just described is not what I'm trying to put forth here BUT it IS how I came to the current design. YES you could also make an actual mechanical motor out of this by using a ferrite core for example but I found that task much more daunting so I went on exploring a solid state design. But this mechanical motor could also be OU. But how can it be OU you might ask? Well I would like to ask you, where will the back EMF be located in such setup? The spokes of the capacitor will experience that blue force I illustrated in the diagram caused by the Lorentz force, But these spokes are fixed and and not moveable. If they don't move they also don't have a chance to experience a back EMF (according to the Corbino effect). So in essence you can torque the ferrite core to any speed and no back EMF is felt on the stationary capacitor. Does that make sense?

Now if we move beyond this mechanical model which has merits on its own we come to the current design. And I know you are skeptic about this but this is my preposition. I for some reason (based on research obviously) believe that this previously torqueing force in a current loop is NOT mechanical as it was in a ferromagnetic material like a PM or the ferrite core described above. In a loop of wire it will manifest as an EMF BECAUSE the current has no return path, and this is what would be immensely interesting if it were the case.

I really feel like making a video to explain this better as text only is not the best medium to convey an idea.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 712
...In a loop of wire it will manifest as an EMF BECAUSE the current has no return path, and this is what would be immensely interesting if it were the case.

Here too there is a return path. From what I understand, the charge of the capacitor creates a radial current as in a disk of a real homopolar motor.
But in each plate of the capacitor, the currents move in opposite directions. The radial currents in the two plates are in opposite directions, it is a current loop, so their effects on the coil cancel each other out.
And if you imagine that by moving the plates away from each other, the coil will only recover the effect of the closest one, it is a mistake, the magnetic field is conservative.



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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Hi Broli,

I have to disagree with your perception of the torque on the coil as depicted by your force arrows there.  In my opinion the radial current in the spokes will create B field on the coil in the z direction as shown in my amended image below.  The B field forms circles around the radial vector so at the coil the field is in the z direction.  That will then create radial force on the wire, not a circumferential force.  I only show one quadrant as I am too lazy to show the other three.  So the only forces on the coil are trying to distort it.  I think it is a fact that in the classical homopolar motor the magnet or the coil do not endure a torque, it is only in the disc that the torque is manifest.

Smudge   
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 712
Here is an experiment, much simpler but related, see attached diagram.

On the left, we have two lines with opposite currents.  They are therefore subjected to two opposite magnetic forces, and the net force on the whole loop is zero.
On the right, the loop is open thanks to a capacitor, so the force can no longer be exerted on the open part between the plates, so we should have a net force on the whole, which means that if we were to suspend the circuit from a wire, we would have an angle with respect to the vertical. But this is not the case. The net force remains zero.

There is no such thing as an open circuit in which a current flows. This is an illusion that the diagram gives. The current is always looped because the charges influence each other at a distance. So opening the circuit with the capacitor does not change the force on the part with the capacitor (there is no force on the open area, of course, but there will be more on the plates where the charges are concentrated).
The movement of a single charge in the universe influences all the other charges in the rest of the universe towards a new equilibrium, which is equivalent to a loop, a return path.



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

Posts: 26
Here is an experiment, much simpler but related, see attached diagram.

On the left, we have two lines with opposite currents.  They are therefore subjected to two opposite magnetic forces, and the net force on the whole loop is zero.
On the right, the loop is open thanks to a capacitor, so the force can no longer be exerted on the open part between the plates, so we should have a net force on the whole, which means that if we were to suspend the circuit from a wire, we would have an angle with respect to the vertical. But this is not the case. The net force remains zero.

There is no such thing as an open circuit in which a current flows. This is an illusion that the diagram gives. The current is always looped because the charges influence each other at a distance. So opening the circuit with the capacitor does not change the force on the part with the capacitor (there is no force on the open area, of course, but there will be more on the plates where the charges are concentrated).
The movement of a single charge in the universe influences all the other charges in the rest of the universe towards a new equilibrium, which is equivalent to a loop, a return path.

Hey F6FLT, yes I agree with this as well. I'm not proposing a violation of Newton's third law either. And the fact that the open circuit shows shows 0 force too makes sense. On OU.com I posted a force break down where I also showed the interaction of single charges in accordance to Newton's third law (derived from the forgotten Weber's electrodynamics). I attached an improved diagram of this below labeled fig 4. Here you see that all forces act according to newton's third law. So even in the case of an open current loop it wouldn't matter as all these forces would cancel out.

What I'm proposing is shown in fig 5 below. IF there is such EMF then it can be used to aid the current flow in one direction without any impeding force on the moving charged particles as their forces would be 90 degrees to their motion.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 712
Hi Broli

There is no possibility of violating the well-established laws of physics (electromagnetism, Newton, relativity or others), simply by invoking them in experimental setups, whatever the setup. If you describe a setup with perfectly conventional properties (current, electrons, magnetic field etc.), you cannot claim that there could be anomalies. It is not a question of physics but of pure logic, because the notions of fields, charge, current that you used at the beginning are perfectly defined, mathematically, as well as the framework of their interactions. It is a question of the mathematical formalism associated with these concepts, which implies the conservation of energy, charge, momentum

Either you invoke exotic mechanisms (ZPE, Maxwell demon, neutrinos or whatever), and then you can apply the concepts of physics like field, charge... and the laws of physics, while having anomalous results, which are no longer really anomalous because they are due to the hypothesis of a new energy source, or you show us a set-up that you have realized according to your idea, with measurements proving anomalies, and then after verification of the facts and their interpretation, we can look for either the mysterious source of the anomalies, or the laws of physics that should be modified.

In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself, 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.



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

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 185

Hey Reiyuki, this is certainly possible as well, obviously a higher capacitance would be better to preferably stay below the RF domain to keep radiation loses low and a whole slew of other effects. But the open nature of the capacitor prevents high capacitances unless someone has a creative idea to fix that. Also remember the only part that would push energy into the system is when charge is moving towards the coil, when it moves back again this energy will be negated and hence before it moves back all this energy must be captured.

Pancake version might work better then?    At any rate the capacitance of your circuit is likely to be quite small anyway if there is any appreciable distance between the plates.
A Tesla Bifilar series configuration would also add more capacitance between the turns themselves, but I'm not sure if this is to be desired or not


Quote from: F6FLT
Either you invoke exotic mechanisms (ZPE, Maxwell demon, neutrinos or whatever), and then you can apply the concepts of physics like field, charge... and the laws of physics, while having anomalous results, which are no longer really anomalous because they are due to the hypothesis of a new energy source, or you show us a set-up that you have realized according to your idea, with measurements proving anomalies, and then after verification of the facts and their interpretation, we can look for either the mysterious source of the anomalies, or the laws of physics that should be modified.


Certain aspects like faster-than-light propagation velocity have not been incorporated into either Heaviside/Maxwell's formulas or with modern Quantum physics.
[ url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3355-3 ]Measuring propagation speed of Coulomb fields[ /url ].  Coulomb fields and displacement currents have not been very well explored since Maxwell/Heaviside's day, because academia is just discovering these things now.
There may very well be additional anomalies and/or loopholes that creative minds have simply not connected. :P


If I am interpreting Broli's hypothesis correct, he is positing that a dielectric displacement current necessarily creates a magnetic induction that is presently being wasted between the plates of a capacitor.  The experiment is clearly laid-out along with a rough guideline of a theory to go with it, so I don't see where the problem is.
I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from performing actual experiments, as it is the only way we will ever make real progress. ;)


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

Posts: 1378
Perhaps relative to this discussion is the attached paper of my work years ago with magneto electric induction using capacitively coupled flat coils.  This was initially inspired by the work of Arie DeGues.  If the high frequency sine wave could be synthesized such that the switching devices could return the negative energy to the supply, this concept would allow an efficient OU device to be realized.

Although I made some feeble attempts to produce this effect at lower frequencies I didn't have much success but may be worth further investigation. 

Regards,
Pm 
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Hi Broli

There is no possibility of violating the well-established laws of physics (electromagnetism, Newton, relativity or others), simply by invoking them in experimental setups, whatever the setup. If you describe a setup with perfectly conventional properties (current, electrons, magnetic field etc.), you cannot claim that there could be anomalies. It is not a question of physics but of pure logic, because the notions of fields, charge, current that you used at the beginning are perfectly defined, mathematically, as well as the framework of their interactions. It is a question of the mathematical formalism associated with these concepts, which implies the conservation of energy, charge, momentum

Either you invoke exotic mechanisms (ZPE, Maxwell demon, neutrinos or whatever), and then you can apply the concepts of physics like field, charge... and the laws of physics, while having anomalous results, which are no longer really anomalous because they are due to the hypothesis of a new energy source, or you show us a set-up that you have realized according to your idea, with measurements proving anomalies, and then after verification of the facts and their interpretation, we can look for either the mysterious source of the anomalies, or the laws of physics that should be modified.

In other words, you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself, 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.

Hey F6FLT I really appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with this statement. The century long ongoing debate on this topic alone is a testament to how divided scientists and researchers are on this very topic. And it's exactly because the well known maxwell equations don't handle these fringe cases that some have proposed other or forgotten models such as Weber's electrodynamics. In almost all cases these two theories give the same result however in the case of an open circuit, they give conflicting results. This fringe case effect is inherently small due to the small capacitances and currents involved.

I shared the attached paper on OU.com as well where a very similar concept is explored with an experiment confirming the proposed idea. Here's a good quote from the paper:

Quote
This is also the reason why it is so difficult to distinguish between Maxwell and Weber electrodynamics simply by measuring the forces around direct currents. Only where the wire ends the fields differ. It is obvious that exactly this must be exploited in order to decide experimentally between the two theories

I mean if we are not exploring these fringe cases for interesting results what are we doing here in the first place?

Perhaps relative to this discussion is the attached paper of my work years ago with magneto electric induction using capacitively coupled flat coils.  This was initially inspired by the work of Arie DeGues.  If the high frequency sine wave could be synthesized such that the switching devices could return the negative energy to the supply, this concept would allow an efficient OU device to be realized.

Although I made some feeble attempts to produce this effect at lower frequencies I didn't have much success but may be worth further investigation. 

Regards,
Pm

Hey partzman thanks for sharing your work. In the OU community I've seen many concepts which seem to be using very similar designs to the ones in this thread but they focus mainly on the circuits and "special" components. Here I'm trying to offer a very simple explanation from first principal logic and personal research experience. Sadly high voltage and high frequency experiments are beyond my current capabilities.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Hi Broli,

I have to disagree with your perception of the torque on the coil as depicted by your force arrows there.  In my opinion the radial current in the spokes will create B field on the coil in the z direction as shown in my amended image below.  The B field forms circles around the radial vector so at the coil the field is in the z direction.  That will then create radial force on the wire, not a circumferential force.  I only show one quadrant as I am too lazy to show the other three.  So the only forces on the coil are trying to distort it.  I think it is a fact that in the classical homopolar motor the magnet or the coil do not endure a torque, it is only in the disc that the torque is manifest.

Smudge

Hey Smudge this is exactly the claim that is being put forward here. I AM claiming that for an open current loop (ie a capacitor) you cannot use the classical Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force law to calculate the magnetic field and forces involved as these only hold for interactions of closed loop currents on moving charged particles. You need a model that considers charge on charge interactions, like Weber's equation for instance which also respects Newtons third law in its strong form (ie forces are collinear with their radial vector) .If you do you'll discover that these forces are not perpendicular to the direction of motion as you have corrected in the diagram.

EDIT: I extracted the relevant simulation figure 3 from the paper I posted earlier and flipped it 90 degrees as it may not be very clear as to what it is depicting. Basically the author performed a simulation to show a force field due to a current wire that is open ended onto moving charge, which are moving from right to left in the below attached diagram. So every arrow on the grid represents the force on a charged particle that is moving from right to left.

The source is the current piece illustrated in green which is open ended and would be the capacitor in my case. Then the field assumes everywhere else that there is a charged particle moving from right to left. Since we are only interested in a single line I have picked a path at the top which is the orange current path (this is the coil or magnet in my design). I have exaggerated the simulated forces in purple, and as you can see in the Weber case which considers charge on charge interactions these forces are not 90 degrees perpendicular to the flow of the current.

I would also like to say that the fact the inherit small capacitance of this design AND that ONLY a small part of the force is in the direction of motion makes any effect inherently small and thus easily dismissible.
« Last Edit: 2021-05-09, 20:56:18 by broli »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2042
broli
Quote
Hey F6FLT I really appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with this statement. The century long ongoing debate on this topic alone is a testament to how divided scientists and researchers are on this very topic. And it's exactly because the well known maxwell equations don't handle these fringe cases that some have proposed other or forgotten models such as Weber's electrodynamics. In almost all cases these two theories give the same result however in the case of an open circuit, they give conflicting results. This fringe case effect is inherently small due to the small capacitances and currents involved.

The main problem I have found is that most people like to quote Maxwell's work but have never actually read it. If they had actually bothered to read it they would know he stated that he purposely excluded vast amounts of other phenomena not directly related for clarity. I have written many science papers and do exactly the same thing as Maxwell did because the format is meant to deal with only one topic limited in scope. So this notion that just because Maxwell didn't include Weber and others work means that it doesn't apply is nonsensical. What most have done is take what Maxwell actually said and did completely out of context.

As well I thought Maxwell's work was a joke, they would reduce all the supposed phenomena in the universe to a hand full of overly vague and generalized equations?. There is also the fact that none of these people had a clue what a "field" is which persists even today. Oh they love to throw terminology and equations around but they have literally no idea what "as it exists in reality" they are trying to describe.

Even more bizarre is that there is no such thing as a "field" in itself because it is simply the measure of a condition or form of notation. Should we start thinking "inches" are a tangible substance which has magical properties enabling it to flow and effect other things?. Most still make this same mistake with lines of force thinking they actually exist in reality when in fact they are just another form of notation. It's become such a quagmire of misinterpretations and false beliefs which explains why they have made almost no real progress in the last 50 years with respect to energy technology.

The fact remains that we were well on our way to doing some really incredible things until Maxwell, Einstein and the gang showed up. The newspapers prior to that time were littered with miraculous free energy and anti-gravity devices then almost all of it came to a screeching halt. Why do you suppose that is?... Tesla said these people were amateurs chasing fairy dust and I would tend to agree. The proof is in the lack of progress in my opinion...

If you want to make some real progress consider the field as nothing more than a phase shift of something already present in free space. The field is not something but a condition of something changing within the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think there is a supposed electric field around particles like the Proton-Electron?, where did it come from?, why is it perpetual?. In fact these particles are nothing more than receiver/re-transmitters producing a phase shift and a particle cannot just magically produce a field of force around itself for no apparent reason. Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

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
The main problem I have found is that most people like to quote Maxwell's work but have never actually read it. If they had actually bothered to read it they would know he stated that he purposely excluded vast amounts of other phenomena not directly related for clarity. I have written many science papers and do exactly the same thing as Maxwell did because the format is meant to deal with only one topic limited in scope. So this notion that just because Maxwell didn't include Weber and others work means that it doesn't apply is nonsensical. What most have done is take what Maxwell actually said and did completely out of context.

As well I thought Maxwell's work was a joke, they would reduce all the supposed phenomena in the universe to a hand full of overly vague and generalized equations?. There is also the fact that none of these people had a clue what a "field" is which persists even today. Oh they love to throw terminology and equations around but they have literally no idea what "as it exists in reality" they are trying to describe.

Even more bizarre is that there is no such thing as a "field" in itself because it is simply the measure of a condition or form of notation. Should we start thinking "inches" are a tangible substance which has magical properties enabling it to flow and effect other things?. Most still make this same mistake with lines of force thinking they actually exist in reality when in fact they are just another form of notation. It's become such a quagmire of misinterpretations and false beliefs which explains why they have made almost no real progress in the last 50 years with respect to energy technology.

The fact remains that we were well on our way to doing some really incredible things until Maxwell, Einstein and the gang showed up. The newspapers prior to that time were littered with miraculous free energy and anti-gravity devices then almost all of it came to a screeching halt. Why do you suppose that is?... Tesla said these people were amateurs chasing fairy dust and I would tend to agree. The proof is in the lack of progress in my opinion...

If you want to make some real progress consider the field as nothing more than a phase shift of something already present in free space. The field is not something but a condition of something changing within the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think there is a supposed electric field around particles like the Proton-Electron?, where did it come from?, why is it perpetual?. In fact these particles are nothing more than receiver/re-transmitters producing a phase shift and a particle cannot just magically produce a field of force around itself for no apparent reason. Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

Hey AC, I don't want to start an all out debate on how broken the current scientific community is and how things are stuck in a loop for almost a century but you are right. I preferably would like to get some experimental confirmation of the proposed effect and explore ways on potentially scaling it up.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 104
broli
If you want to make some real progress consider the field as nothing more than a phase shift of something already present in free space. The field is not something but a condition of something changing within the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think there is a supposed electric field around particles like the Proton-Electron?, where did it come from?, why is it perpetual?. In fact these particles are nothing more than receiver/re-transmitters producing a phase shift and a particle cannot just magically produce a field of force around itself for no apparent reason. Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

Not a "phase shift" but a frequency of vibration function. As one cannot use meters and scopes to measure what we percieve as empty space, we must identify the method of the physics that operates through space to devliever power to the atoms, that is constantly present everywhere.

You cannot use an electrical meter to measure the torsion force on a shaft comming out of a motor, but there is torquing stress on the shaft that changes every time a piston fires. There is an underlying vibration present on the shaft causing motion. As this frequency rises the power on the shaft rises with it.

Until we can begin to quantify the energy in empty space, we are lost to couple to it and extract energy as the atom does.
Fortunately we do now have access to the frequencies the atom uses at the Isotope level where the strong force is generated.

We also now have access to the frequency stack in empty space that we can tap into.

When we tap into space and create an Isotope conical field, it cannot be measured using an EM meter, we have to set up two of them at 90 degees in a state of motion as the atom does in order to move an EM scope or meter.

The raw force we extract from space is a tensor, exactly like the vibration on the motor shaft, it vibrates.

This is why for so long it has illuded everyone, most believe EM comes first and so cannot reach beneath it to start working directly with vibration tensors.

Once you realize there is an energy souce that is more pirmal then EM, and lies beneath it, then you can begin to ask the correct questions to discover how to begin manipulating it.

Wilbert Smith "The New Science"

Dave L
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2042
DaveL
Quote
Not a "phase shift" but a frequency of vibration function. As one cannot use meters and scopes to measure what we percieve as empty space, we must identify the method of the physics that operates through space to devliever power to the atoms, that is constantly present everywhere.

I would agree, phase shift was my being lazy and applying a term more people can relate to. The incoming universal oscillations are modified by matter and then radiated outward at a different frequency giving the appearance that something is present in the surrounding space... a field. However as we can see the field is not a product of the source but the source manipulating the surrounding space. This is why the field cannot not rotate with the source because it is not only a product of the source but also the space it occupies... really neat stuff to consider.

Quote
This is why for so long it has illuded everyone, most believe EM comes first and so cannot reach beneath it to start working directly with vibration tensors.
Once you realize there is an energy souce that is more pirmal then EM, and lies beneath it, then you can begin to ask the correct questions to discover how to begin manipulating it.

Agreed, and while I love these concepts describing nature and science it can get a little mind numbing at times. It's crazy isn't it?, most of what we think we know through our limited senses and somewhat faulty measurements is an illusion. Broli touched on the problem as did many other great minds in that our senses can only take us so far and then reason and logic must prevail. This is why we see so many diverse view points trying to describe the same effects. In truth the criticism here made me question everything I thought I knew and I am a better man for it. We must question everything even though part of us wants to dismiss it as known even though it is not... if there is no room for doubt there is no room to learn and make progress.

Broli
Quote
Hey AC, I don't want to start an all out debate on how broken the current scientific community is and how things are stuck in a loop for almost a century but you are right. I preferably would like to get some experimental confirmation of the proposed effect and explore ways on potentially scaling it up.

I agree and my mind tends to go off on tangents which allows me to teach and learn in the same instance, ergo it was as much for others as myself. Did you know all the greatest minds talked to themselves as a way to verify there conclusions as true or false because they can smell bs... even there own, lol. In truth the scientific community are better people than I perceive myself to be. They are more determined, more focused on results and more educated which comes full circle back to intent.

Which respect to your topic, consider what you propose...The interesting case of magnetic induction due to a Capacitor.

From my perspective this notion is ambiguous on multiple levels. First there is no such thing as a magnetic field as most imagine it, few know or can describe what in fact it is. They say it is a field not knowing what a field is, of force not knowing how or why a force could manifest itself on the most fundamental level, supposedly originating from a source not understanding that said source is a fog of particles induced by external devices to near the speed of light in a hard vacuum we liberally call... matter. If fact there is basically no matter in it as what we call it is in fact 1% material moving, oscillating near the speed of light induced to move by external devices, ergo a universal oscillation invoked on every level in every space.

The sheer magnitude of the failure to understand what is occurring on even the most basic level is very hard for me to comprehend now. I get it, I was once there but now I am now here, and my here is very much far removed from where I was and most seem to be. I have a suspicion DaveL get's it, everything is not quite as it seems to most, in fact it is so far removed from normalcy that it's amazing anyone get it. Thankfully we stand on the shoulders of great men who paved the way for us.

With that outburst I digress...

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
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 104
broli

Why does a magnetic field not rotate with the source?, it moves with the source but does not rotate because the supposed field is a property of free space not it's source. No fields rotate and can only be dragged along by the source... why do you suppose that is?.

Regards
AC

A magnetic field can flip at Ghz frequencies, the Electron has almost no mass, this is revealed in the study of ESR. The NMR field at the proton layer flips at Mhz frequencies and it is where the mass is located.

The velocity of an electron in an orbit on an iron atom is very close to light speed, and this has almost no mass.
It is reasonable that if we spin a magnet at 1000 rpm, its mass rotation will never catch up with those velocities of spin.

In vibration work, we discovered we can couple to something if a "ratio" is present and we know that ratio.
We also discovered that we can change that ratio by Octaves and it will still couple at lower octave.

The Electron/Proton ratio can be used to vibrate up something producing tensors that vibrate.
Remember that Electron spin opposes Proton spin in the same magnetic field [tesla] and this is the low energy state where the magnetic fields of the two are in opposition. If we flip the proton over so the two magnetic field are now in attraction then the spin reverses on one and we get spin coupling, this is the high energy state. This is how NMR works, as we flip from the hight energy state back to the low energy state a photon is given off with a frequency that will identify the particular atom.

Here an experiment that may raise many questions, and it demonstrates a phenomena of tensor vibration fields which has never been recorded that I am aware of.
http://www.resonantfractals.org/EP_Ratio/EP_Ratio.html

DaveL
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 104
Einsteins mistake,

For the most part time relativity has been verified as correct, as he predicted, at atomic levels, and in use of atomic clocks on GPS sattelites.
Eintein got this right.

However if we read Dewy Larsons work in the lab, he discovered a missing negative sign in Einsteins works.
It was claimed as we approach light velocity with mass aboard, our mass will increase to infinity, and it was claimed there is not enough energy in the universe to accomplish this.

In the lab Larson realized that as mass approaches light velocity it effectively reduces in weight or looses mass.
This hands on discovery goes unnoticed in physics, but it was proven with experiment.
It opens the door to comprehension of how saucer craft can turn at 90 degrees at high rates of velocity.

While working with cars and Joe Cells I began to notice with specific tunning of the vibration field as we cornered, we felt much less being pulled to the outer side of the turn. This was a reduction of inertial response, and all we really did was create a large vibration field bubble on the car.

Consciously this was felt as an acceleration of mind, like being on speed, but with no after effects. So as we increased the mass vibrations on all our atoms, we got two notable effects, mental clarity, and reduction of inertia.

This JC work becomes addictive, and probably good that we stopped, but after this I started to experiment with the vibration of the engine of the car and found a method to reduce inertia on the acceleration of the motor and the turning of the car.
I call it the 89/50 field, and it can be amplifed by adding more layers to it, to the point where you stop feeling the earth and start feeling the center of the engines spin as your relative gravitational center. With too many layers it became dangerous, as the car did not want to stay on the road, it did not want to turn in a curve at all, and since you could not feel the motion with respect to the earth, it was considered dangerous to me at the time.
As long as you were moving straight, there was almost no inertia relative to the earth.

The 8950 document is in the Joe Cell section.
http://www.resonantfractals.org/Joe_Cell/Joe_Cell_Menu.html

I had a fellow put this field on a motor cycle successfully, and he came back somtime later to tell me of the accident he had, the bike would take off like crazy.

This is the sort of effects Joe was getting at the race track, to the point where no one would volunteer to be the driver.

Quantification of these vibration fields, or tensor fields, has allowed me to experience things I would never thought possible, from my formal education.

DaveL
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
Hi Broli,

I have to disagree with your perception of the torque on the coil as depicted by your force arrows there.  In my opinion the radial current in the spokes will create B field on the coil in the z direction as shown in my amended image below.  The B field forms circles around the radial vector so at the coil the field is in the z direction.  That will then create radial force on the wire, not a circumferential force.  I only show one quadrant as I am too lazy to show the other three.  So the only forces on the coil are trying to distort it.  I think it is a fact that in the classical homopolar motor the magnet or the coil do not endure a torque, it is only in the disc that the torque is manifest.

Smudge

Smudge I wanted to expand even further on this. Again if you look at the referenced paper "Experimental confirmation of Weber electrodynamics against Maxwell electrodynamics" you can clearly see the differences in forces when you are dealing with an open current loop. For the Maxwell equations you don't even need to do the math to see that both action and reaction forces are in the same direction which would already be a violation of the action-reaction laws.

However Weber does lead to the correct force direction but this force also has to be a torqueing force or EMF inducing force. Again this has been experimentally proven by the author. I'm going one step further by opening up the capacitor by pushing out one side only. Which in theory should lead to an EMF or a net torque (if you would use a ferromagnetic material that oscillated with the capacitor current). And the diagram below also shows WHY it's only when the current moves towards the coil there is an EMF in the direction of current and why the total current must be cut off when the current switches direction. Which leads us all the way back to my first post.
« Last Edit: 2021-05-10, 08:12:35 by broli »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 712
Hey F6FLT I really appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with this statement. The century long ongoing debate on this topic alone is a testament to how divided scientists and researchers are on this very topic. And it's exactly because the well known maxwell equations don't handle these fringe cases that some have proposed other or forgotten models such as Weber's electrodynamics...
Hi Broli,

I like your enthusiasm but I'm going to play the wet blanket. Maxwell or Weber, these are points of detail, because both methods involve the conservation of energy. You can't expect any more anomalies from one than from the other.
From a physical point of view, I see their methods more as incomplete engineering tools, than as physical theories. They hide more fundamental phenomena, which relativity reveals.

Electrical phenomena have only one origin: the coulombic field of the charge. The magnetic field is only the electric field of a moving charge, which is strengthened transversely and reduced longitudinally because of its speed (one only has to apply the Lorentz transforms to realize this). The non-isotropy of the coulombic field of a moving charge makes the magnetic field.

Once we know this, things become much simpler in terms of understanding the phenomena (not in terms of calculation), and they evacuate any idea that we could obtain effects incompatible with the conservation of energy or momentum. To do this, one must either leave the known theories and base oneself on alternative theories, or invoke new energy sources, or have experimental proof of anomalies, which obviously cannot be logically imagined from the classical theories that forbid them. That's why I said "you cannot use the concepts and laws of the fundamental theories of physics against itself".




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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Smudge I wanted to expand even further on this. Again if you look at the referenced paper "Experimental confirmation of Weber electrodynamics against Maxwell electrodynamics" you can clearly see the differences in forces when you are dealing with an open current loop. For the Maxwell equations you don't even need to do the math to see that both action and reaction forces are in the same direction which would already be a violation of the action-reaction laws.

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.)   

Quote
However Weber does lead to the correct force direction

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
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 712
...Certainly a body has some property that determines its inertial mass (like collision cross section against virtual particles)...
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.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-11-29, 03:24:32