PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-01-24, 17:59:18
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: The interesting case of magnetic induction due to a Capacitor.  (Read 5393 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
There are Capacitors and there are Capacitors.  The diversity of the construct of the Electrical Component is amazing.

The highest quality capacitors are an essential component of High Energy Devices such as the Fission Bomb Detonator or the Rail Gun Discharge Assembly.

The differences in cost of the mundane capacitor versus the highest quality military grade capacitors is staggering.

There are "Secrets" to Capacitor Construction that the general public is not aware of for Security Reasons.  Some just cannot be found on the Surplus Market.

Otherwise, their characteristics are pretty well understood.

I haven't followed this discussion closely until now.  I find Broli's response here to be incredibly sensible and precisely on the mark.

Brilliant discussion!


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
If the induction effect described in the paper is real and independently verified it would have big implications. At its core the effect is simple without having to resort to "mystical" theories about capacitors. But one experiment is not proof enough, more independent verification is needed.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
But, I wonder.

Is the Magnetic Induction effect a function of the Aether?

When a radiant field is produced which is either predominantly Electrical or Magnetic, as it propagates through the Aether it resolves into a field containing both equally.

Near Field is predominantly one or the other, but beyond near field the resolution is balanced.

But both are always present at the source whether it be designed to favor Electrical or Magnetic.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
At the described frequencies and dimensions this certainly is a a near field effect. The closer the CCFL tube is to the moving charges in the capacitor/antenna the more pronounced the effect would be. The frequency should be irrelevant for the effect but higher frequencies do pose all sorts of problems. It's all about how much current you can sustain in the capacitor/antenna which obviously depends on the capacitance which is very low sadly.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Brolin
This experiment reminds me of the Hiddink one terminal capacitor setup.

I tried to build this quite a few years ago but it was thrown together and didn't work out very well. I may have to take another crack at it...

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
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 55
Brolin
This experiment reminds me of the Hiddink one terminal capacitor setup.

I tried to build this quite a few years ago but it was thrown together and didn't work out very well. I may have to take another crack at it...

Regards
AC

That Hiddink patent is defective.  It specifies that peeling one plate from a capacitor will discharge that side of the dielectric, untethering the charge on the other plate, when in reality the energy is stored in the dielectric itself.  There really is a Capacity Changer, but it doesn't contain a dielectric layer.  All of this is known to various intelligence agencies and that's why Canada had no interest in buying the patent.  However, Joseph (RIP) did get some results which suggest an electrophorus effect.

Ancient symbols showing concentric circles connected by radial line segments reference this electrical/nuclear technology.  Various patents teach that an electrical current increases in magnitude as it passes through a radioactive substance.  (e.g., the inner circle surrounding the non shown radial spark gap).

edit: Did I say rotating spark gap?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
That Hiddink patent is defective.  It specifies that peeling one plate from a capacitor will discharge that side of the dielectric, untethering the charge on the other plate, when in reality the energy is stored in the dielectric itself.  There really is a Capacity Changer, but it doesn't contain a dielectric layer.  All of this is known to various intelligence agencies and that's why Canada had no interest in buying the patent.  However, Joseph (RIP) did get some results which suggest an electrophorus effect.

Ancient symbols showing concentric circles connected by radial line segments reference this electrical/nuclear technology.  Various patents teach that an electrical current increases in magnitude as it passes through a radioactive substance.  (e.g., the inner circle surrounding the non shown radial spark gap).

edit: Did I say rotating spark gap?

No to go off topic in my own thread but indeed. This video also explains it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXv063O5B8

I do want to see more exploration into Jospeh Hiddinks idea but I fail to see how charge can suddenly "dissapear". Even if the plasma is suddenly extinguished, all ions will bind back to available electrons and the excess charge won't just magically disappear and as the previous video shows it will transfer to the dielectric (glass).

However any ideas to make a large amount of charge appear somewhere would certainly help boost the induction effect that is proposed in this thread  :)
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 55
Right.  And it's also not my intention to pull the discussion off topic.  I think the Capacity Changer is important enough to warrant a separate thread.  I talked to Joseph quite a while back, on a different forum, and he did have information which isn't in his patent.

As far as what's presented here, the thing which caught my attention was the statement that current moves towards the coil without reaching it.  This is a recipe for producing a longitudinal pulse in the pick-up coil.  If this pulse is the objective, rather than just detecting current in the disc, there's also another approach which could work.  It seems that when a smoke ring torus containing charged particles stops on impact with a sheet of glass, a longitudinal wave continues moving onwards, at the same speed the torus was moving.  (The opposite of kicking a charged particles into motion).  If a coil can pick up the passage of this wave, the signal's potential will vary with the ring's velocity.  And you can see the passage of the wave if there's a spider web rippling on the other side of the glass.

edit:. When a charged smoke ring torus implodes on impact, there's quite a bit of momentary charge build up in the central region.
« Last Edit: 2021-12-15, 20:28:30 by Jerry Volland »
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
After thinking of different ways on how to exploit this concept I return to the same simple ideas. Purely electrical experiments are interesting but they require exotic materials and fast moving electrons (such as CFL tubes or super conductors). However this concept could also be validated mechanically which may offer a more approachable experiment that can be performed. We already know that this can be done mechanically as Steffen proved in his paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332709610_The_detected_direction_of_the_force_onto_a_permanent_magnet_caused_by_the_displacement_current_in_a_wire_gap_supports_Weber_electrodynamics

However this can be used to apply a torque to a magnet (or two magnets in repulsion to be exact). During the short time period the circuit acts like a capacitor a torque is felt by the magnet. As soon as the voltage breaks down and current flows across the gap/tube the circuit is a conventional closed loop circuit balancing all forces on the magnet. If this is repeat in quick succession you can generate a continuous torque. However to see a significant effect the currents need to be at least 50A or higher depending on the scale of the experiment.

The advantage of this setup is that you can leverage the high frequency to make up for the small capacitance of the system. But obviously you need a high voltage source that is able to push these high currents at these frequencies. It's important the current is only driving in one direction or else the torque will be reversed negating the initial push hence the signal is full wave rectified.

The end result is a perpetually accelerating magnet with no back EMF! If anyone is up for a build I'm prepared to sponsor them.

Edit: it's btw not limited to magnets in repulsion a single disc magnet can also be used but then the circuit geometry needs to be a bit different as attached.
« Last Edit: 2022-01-02, 14:56:42 by broli »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 731
That Hiddink patent is defective.  It specifies that peeling one plate from a capacitor will discharge that side of the dielectric, untethering the charge on the other plate, when in reality the energy is stored in the dielectric itself.
This is not true in the general case. For example if the dielectric is vacuum or air, no recoverable energy will be stored in the dielectric when the field source is turned off.
This is only true for dielectrics that are polarizable and able to retain at least some of their polarization when the field is removed.
Since the principle of the capacitor is to separate positive and negative charges, the energy is exactly the work done to make this separation (W=∫ q.E.dl).
If the dielectric is polarizable, part of the work will be the separation of the charges on the plates and part of the work will be the orientation of the dielectric's dipoles, which corresponds to the displacement field D=Ɛ.E.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 55
A vacuum or air dielectric is not the general case with the capacitors we deal with.  Even though it is true that charge can be pulled onto the removable plate of an electrophorus.  And it's also true that Professor Van deGraaff's son took out a patent for vacuum seals at each end of a drift tube having a rotating central shaft.  This type of Capacity Changer does NOT have a solid dielectric.  The fact that this actual apparatus does work doesn't have any bearing on Hiddink's claims regarding the use of a glass dielectric.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 731
A vacuum or air dielectric is not the general case with the capacitors we deal with...
No one has said that.
The case of air or vacuum, and there are many other dielectrics in the same case, is only a counterexample to your general claim that the dielectric would retain energy when the source of the field is turned off.

A particular case cannot be taken to support a general assertion, which you had done, but on the other hand a particular case, taken as a counterexample, invalidates a rule claimed to be general as you have asserted it. This is elementary logic regularly used in science.




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

Posts: 731
After thinking of different ways on how to exploit this concept I return to the same simple ideas. Purely electrical experiments are interesting but they require exotic materials and fast moving electrons (such as CFL tubes or super conductors). However this concept could also be validated mechanically which may offer a more approachable experiment that can be performed. We already know that this can be done mechanically as Steffen proved in his paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332709610_The_detected_direction_of_the_force_onto_a_permanent_magnet_caused_by_the_displacement_current_in_a_wire_gap_supports_Weber_electrodynamics
...

Hi Broli

I think there is an important experimental bias in Steen Kühn's experiment, which is the electrostatic forces between the magnet and each plate of the capacitor. The slightest vertical imbalance in its positioning, and this force will pull the magnet up or down.

The idea of a possible disagreement between Weber and Maxwell comes up regularly. A few years ago, I had thought of the following setup: see attached picture. If the capacitor is replaced by a conductor, the magnetic forces Fm and F'm are balanced. But what if we insert a capacitor? Will the force be exerted on the empty part? Will we then have an imbalance? If this is the case, then if the circuit is suspended from a wire, we should observe a deviation of the whole from the vertical.

This experiment is simpler than Kühn's, because although the generator G supplies an AC current, the opposing forces on each vertical conductor are always in the same direction, so we are not limited by the charging time of the capacitor.

I confess that I have not done this experiment, but if a net force was exerted on the rectangular loop with the capacitor, I think we would already know, it would be revolutionary.
According to Weber and Ampere, the forces between current elements should no longer balance between left and right because of the capacitor gap. And yet we still have the balance. It is not that Weber and Ampere would be wrong, but that here we have to take into account the electrostatic forces due to the fact that significant voltages appear at the terminals of the capacitor, voltages that do not exist when the circuit is only a conductive rectangle, and that now cause forces on the rest of the circuit. The calculation of the forces then becomes very complex, it will depend on the geometry of the plates, but I think that all the forces, electric + magnetic, will maintain the equilibrium and that the net force on the loop will be zero.
My point is to say that when we use large capacitors compared to the section of the conductors, we can no longer limit the analysis to the current and magnetic forces, we must take into account the voltages and electrical forces.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 55
No one has said that.
The case of air or vacuum, and there are many other dielectrics in the same case, is only a counterexample to your general claim that the dielectric would retain energy when the source of the field is turned off.

A particular case cannot be taken to support a general assertion, which you had done, but on the other hand a particular case, taken as a counterexample, invalidates a rule claimed to be general as you have asserted it. This is elementary logic regularly used in science.

A capacitor remains charged only as long as the voltage continues to be applied? I have several air dielectric trimmer caps, which seem to hold a charge when the energizing field is switched off.  Likewise, my high dollar vacuum dielectric doorknob cap.

Hiddink specified using a solid dielectric, such as glass, then removing the inner plate, consisting of a conductive plasma.  In reality, a concentric electrode capacitor does not discharge when the central electrode is simply pulled, or rotated, out.  A completely different approach must be used.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
Hi Broli

I think there is an important experimental bias in Steen Kühn's experiment, which is the electrostatic forces between the magnet and each plate of the capacitor. The slightest vertical imbalance in its positioning, and this force will pull the magnet up or down.

The idea of a possible disagreement between Weber and Maxwell comes up regularly. A few years ago, I had thought of the following setup: see attached picture. If the capacitor is replaced by a conductor, the magnetic forces Fm and F'm are balanced. But what if we insert a capacitor? Will the force be exerted on the empty part? Will we then have an imbalance? If this is the case, then if the circuit is suspended from a wire, we should observe a deviation of the whole from the vertical.

This experiment is simpler than Kühn's, because although the generator G supplies an AC current, the opposing forces on each vertical conductor are always in the same direction, so we are not limited by the charging time of the capacitor.

I confess that I have not done this experiment, but if a net force was exerted on the rectangular loop with the capacitor, I think we would already know, it would be revolutionary.
According to Weber and Ampere, the forces between current elements should no longer balance between left and right because of the capacitor gap. And yet we still have the balance. It is not that Weber and Ampere would be wrong, but that here we have to take into account the electrostatic forces due to the fact that significant voltages appear at the terminals of the capacitor, voltages that do not exist when the circuit is only a conductive rectangle, and that now cause forces on the rest of the circuit. The calculation of the forces then becomes very complex, it will depend on the geometry of the plates, but I think that all the forces, electric + magnetic, will maintain the equilibrium and that the net force on the loop will be zero.
My point is to say that when we use large capacitors compared to the section of the conductors, we can no longer limit the analysis to the current and magnetic forces, we must take into account the voltages and electrical forces.

Your assumption is wrong that Weber or Ampere would predict a force in the proposed experiment. Both force equations respect Newtons third law so all forces will always be balanced and all add up to 0 thus no movement will be seen. Weber and Ampere ALWAYS conserve linear and angular momentum. However the real interesting part is how this momentum does not need to conserve energy.

Below is the most simplistic illustration of this. When a charge moves towards a magnet it will experience a perpendicular force (which Weber, Ampere AND Lorentz all predict equally well). However only Weber and Ampere will allow you to predict the mechanical force on the magnet. Both are mechanically interacting and changing each others momentum. Now if the charge were fixed on a rail its forward velocity would not change but the momentum change will be seen as an angular momentum change that is equal and opposite to that which makes the magnet spin.

First let me remark that no one has ever performed this experiment. This alone would already prove that charges interact directly with the source of the magnetic field. Second what is now interesting and what can be exploited is the fact that the magnet is spinning without the charge having to lose any kinetic energy. Angular momentum fully conserved on the other hand so no violation of any of newtons laws has occurred.

But now if we choose to we can extract the spinning kinetic energy from the magnet. This again is a form of transfer of angular momentum but now it's not due to electromagnetic forces that were based on velocity. So this is the "hack" on gaining energy. You use a special form of a force that depends on the velocity to build up momentum and then you extract this momentum using another kind of force which depends on distance (a spring for example or a break to produce heat or whatever floats your boat).

You will notice that if this energy was not extracted that the spinning magnet would decelerate when the charge moved away again, thus the system would conserve momentum AND energy. But no one said that you can't extract said energy before the charge started to move away again.

One additional point I would like to make, I stopped seeing magnets as a block of material that emit field lines, every magnet can be modeled as a (stack of) coil(s). This is a much easier way to actually visualize the forces acting on it as you can see in the below illustration. Btw this also shows that if the circuit was and actual circuit the force would be seen as an EMF, in the case of a PM the force is seen as a mechanical torque.


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 731
Your assumption is wrong that Weber or Ampere would predict a force in the proposed experiment. ...
Prove it!

If you place yourself in the Weber/Ampere frame, it is clear that for reasons of symmetry and the current being the same in the whole circuit at a given time, the force on each left or right current elements balances if we have pure conductors. With the capacitor gap, there are no more current elements there, so there is no force, so there is a right/left imbalance.

And if you consider the gap as a current element, then you place yourself in the framework of displacement currents, thus of Maxwell, which is inconsistent with the starting hypothesis.

The weak point of Weber/Ampere is that it is not possible to treat with the current elements, what happens in the gap of a capacitor. It is not that their theory is wrong, it is that it is inapplicable in certain cases like the one treated by Kühn, if one does not complete it by using the "voltage elements" which the use of a capacitor implies and which induce, as already said, electrical forces.

Concerning your experiment, I might be able to give an opinion when you describe it in a more scientific way. "When a charge moves towards a magnet" but how in relation to the magnetic field? "spinning kinetic energy from the magnet" what is it ?... your pre-suppositions not being shared, it is difficult to discuss this, because of the lack of a common reference frame.
I can only advise you to set it up and then provide us with your measurement results.




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

Posts: 39
Prove it!

The proof is the very equation it self. For every charge that feels a force there is an equal but opposite force on the charge causing that force. So the gap does not matter. If you calculate the force on every current element due to al other current elements the total force will always be 0. I have written some software in the past to perform this kind of numerical simulation to show this as well. I mean if any object pushes/pulls on another object respecting newton's third law then the total force of such closed system will always be 0. I don't know how else I can explain this as this is very basic physics.

As for the proposed magnet experiment. Yes this is not so simple to perform. It requires large charges and sensitive torque sensing devices. Because as Weber also showed himself, his force equation is in fact conservative. Meaning if the charge were to move towards and away from the magnet, the magnet would come to a halt again and lose the gained potential energy. But this is when the process cannot be "hijacked". Imagine dropping something due to gravity, and then being able to switch off gravity for a moment and pull it back up. This is what you can do here.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 731
The proof is the very equation it self. For every charge that feels a force there is an equal but opposite force on the charge causing that force. So the gap does not matter. If you calculate the force on every current element due to al other current elements the total force will always be 0.
We all agree with that.
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

In the Ampere/Weber framework, if you integrate the forces that the current elements exert on each other, the resultants on each of the 2 vertical branches can't be equal since the length of the integration path is not the same because of the capacitor gap, while the current is indeed the same in each current element! This is elementary math.
The fact that you had to talk about "charge" instead of "current elements" confirms the impossibility to solve the problem in the pure Weber/Ampere framework. And that is only what I am saying.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2698
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.
What about displacement current elements ?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
We all agree with that.
The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

In the Ampere/Weber framework, if you integrate the forces that the current elements exert on each other, the resultants on each of the 2 vertical branches can't be equal since the length of the integration path is not the same because of the capacitor gap, while the current is indeed the same in each current element! This is elementary math.
The fact that you had to talk about "charge" instead of "current elements" confirms the impossibility to solve the problem in the pure Weber/Ampere framework. And that is only what I am saying.

Look I don't want to insult you or anything or end up in a useless battle of ego's here. But without a good understanding of these equations we will keep tripping over semantics and spinning in circles.

The problem is only that by talking about "charges" instead of "current elements" ("for every charge that feels a force"), you are no longer in the Ampere/Weber framework.

Weber's equation ONLY deals with charges whereas Ampere's deals with current elements. But both are equivalent. Weber himself derived his force equation from Ampere. So I really don't know what you're talking about here.

In the Ampere/Weber framework, if you integrate the forces that the current elements exert on each other, the resultants on each of the 2 vertical branches can't be equal since the length of the integration path is not the same because of the capacitor gap, while the current is indeed the same in each current element! This is elementary math.

This is where I believe you tripped. I believe you are assuming you should integrate over the gap too! The whole point of Ampere's current element is that you only deal with the current elements that are REAL, the (imaginary) displacement current is thus irrelevant it does not contribute any force onto the rest of the circuit. You are using classical electrodynamics (displacement current) and adding it to contribute into the Ampere equation which is not correct.
So if you would cut the circuit up into small current element pieces you just go through each piece and calculate the force it's feeling due all other pieces. Again by design and logic this will lead to a total force of 0.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
What about displacement current elements ?

I believe this is what's causing the confusion. There is no such thing as displacement current in the Ampere/Weber force equation. Displacement current is part of classical EM to reconcile field theory. Ampere/Weber only deal with the physical parts of the circuit, charges (for Weber) or current elements (for Ampere).
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 731
What about displacement current elements ?

Neither Ampère nor Weber speak of displacement currents.

Personally, I have no problem with displacement currents, which are very useful for understanding, nor with Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Let's remember what we are talking about. A study by Steffen Kühn, mentioned above by broli, claims to show a difference in experimental results, compared to the predictions either by Weber or by Maxwell.
I have pointed out an experimental bias, since Kühn does not take into account the electrostatic forces that will necessarily appear between the magnet and the two poles of the capacitor because the voltage is not negligible.

And I have shown with another, simpler setup, that the "current elements", taken alone, are not sufficient to describe the situation. Broli tells us that Weber's electrodynamics answers the problem, however, and from what I understand, it is because it also takes into account charges, not only currents, and therefore electrical forces, not only magnetic ones. I want to believe this, since Weber's electromagnetism is entirely based on the coulombic forces of moving charges. But this is not what is implemented in Kühn's text. He only deals with the question of current elements (his § 2.3), as if there were only magnetic forces, which is not true.

Finally, I have no more conceptual problem with Weber than with Maxwell, and even Weber is rather relevant. Because there is a third way to treat electromagnetism, and that is through relativity. Now in relativity, it is the Coulombian fields, deformed by the motion of the charges (because of the contraction of the lengths), which cause the magnetic effects. With relativity, as with Weber, the fundamental notion is the coulombic field. But again, Steffen Kühn's experiment cannot demonstrate what it claims because only magnetic forces are calculated, when electric forces will also be present.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2698
But without a good understanding of these equations we will keep tripping over semantics and spinning in circles.
In my opinion conceptual correctness needs to precede mathematical correctness.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
Let's remember what we are talking about. A study by Steffen Kühn, mentioned above by broli, claims to show a difference in experimental results, compared to the predictions either by Weber or by Maxwell.
I have pointed out an experimental bias, since Kühn does not take into account the electrostatic forces that will necessarily appear between the magnet and the two poles of the capacitor because the voltage is not negligible.

Well this is a criticism I can fully agree on! This is why it's published so others can replicate it and challenge it. There are numerous ways to eliminate these electrostatic forces. In fact there might even be a more major flaw and that is due to capacitive coupling. A current could flow across the magnet due to capacitive coupling. In theory the same forces should be measured with or without this coupling BUT you lose the benefit of the "energy hack". With this coupling you are no longer operating as an open gap and similar to a homopolar motor, a back EMF should be experienced as this coupling current will tend to be pushed up/down which on its turn leads to side ways force/EMF countering the applied EMF.

Luckily there is one method to eliminate both of these problems in one go. It's best to use a magnet that is rectangular and longer than its width inside of the gap. The magnet should also preferably have a nonconductive coating to eliminate capacitive couple currents.

Now since Weber's equation is a particle on particle force equation. The advantage is that you can easily simulate them in an n-body simulator. I'm currently working on one using the Unity game engine but still struggling on the learning curve. Hopefully soon I have something interesting to show.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 39
Here's a small sneap peak of an initial simulation result. You can see the sideways force on the moving charge as predicted by the Lorentz force but what's interesting is that that you can also see that it has a longitudinal component.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACdvE1Frjhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQrYI6F9SsY

More simulations will follow when I have some more time.
« Last Edit: 2022-01-09, 22:11:09 by broli »
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-01-24, 17:59:18