PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-07, 21:43:48
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Smudge's Route to Overunity  (Read 1531 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
What do you think about further acceleration of the surface electrons by the standing (yet alternating) electric potentials appearing on the adjacent turns of a solenoidal coil as in the principle illustrated below ?:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif
Smudge's Route to Overunity


This diagram depicts separate cylindrical electrodes, which are charged alternately, but the turns of a properly phased helical coil can play the roles of such alternating electrodes, too. Can't they ?
Yes that will work too but I don't see OU here.  My point about the spin polarised electrons is that they effectively come into and out of existence and that allows for unusual performance.  But maybe just simple electrons doing that also works.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
The E field normal to the surface pulls electrons to the surface and the B field normal to the surface magnetizes those surface electrons, i.e. aligns their spins as shown.
...
That is the Cu tube shown in cross section.
I know, I know ...but I am not the only one that will be reading this paper.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Were in good company gentlemen...

Consider this, some of the best and brightest minds on the planet cannot solve even the simplest problems which consist of only a few basic components.

1)The two capacitor paradox.
It's just two capacitors connected by a switch, one charged capacitor discharges into an uncharged capacitor through a switch and 1/2 the energy disappears in the process. The debate has been raging for years and countless scientific papers written and yet nobody can agree on where the energy goes.

I don't see any paradox and it is quite clear where the energy goes, it goes as heat, possibly followed by phase changes (solid to liquid then an expanding gas).  It is only a paradox if you consider the conductors in the circuit to have zero resistance or infinite conductance, and that includes the electrodes in the capacitor and the switch.  If you place a resistor into your circuit diagram and do simple analysis it shows clearly where the energy goes.  If you don't believe this do an experiment with capacitors charged to high voltage, use heavy gauge wire but have a small length (mm) of fine gauge wire in the circuit.  When you close the switch that fine wire will explode.  The current rise time is so fast that the fine wire goes through phases changes from hot-solid to liquid to gas before the molecules even have time to move far, then the plasma "wire" continues to carry rising current dissipating more energy so that it expands radially shooting out the molecules at detonation velocities.  This is known as an exploding bridge wire detonator (EBW) that is used to set off primary explosives.  The conductor can be of strip form when it is known as an exploding foil initiator (EFI).  In military equipment these do not require the usual shutter placed between secondary and primary explosives, safety locks are instead applied to the charging of the capacitor.

If you consider superconductors where the resistance is zero you seemingly have infinite current over a zero rise time, and that tells me the super conductor will no longer be so super, it will be destroyed one way or another.
Quote
2)Dr. Walter Lewin’s Paradox.
It's just a loop of wire with a 100 ohm and 900 ohm resistor induced by an external coil. Yet again the debate has raged on for years, countless scientific papers written and nobody can agree on what's happening in a circuit so simple a four year old could build it.
Where is the paradox?  If you correctly take account of all the conductors' alignments with the inducing A field closed loops (including any connections to the voltmeter and within the voltmeter) and deduce the voltage induced into each section the paradox vanishes, Kirchoff's Law remains intact.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2050
smudge
Quote
I don't see any paradox and it is quite clear where the energy goes, it goes as heat, possibly followed by phase changes (solid to liquid then an expanding gas).  It is only a paradox if you consider the conductors in the circuit to have zero resistance or infinite conductance, and that includes the electrodes in the capacitor and the switch.  If you place a resistor into your circuit diagram and do simple analysis it shows clearly where the energy goes.  If you don't believe this do an experiment with capacitors charged to high voltage, use heavy gauge wire but have a small length (mm) of fine gauge wire in the circuit.

I did many experiments some of which were shown on my bench, https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3994.0

I also read countless science papers as well and most came to the same conclusions you have but not all. However in my opinion the viewpoint is superficial at best for various reasons relating to energy specifically.

It was these experiments with the two capacitor setup which helped me determine the total energy present in most electrical systems. The problem is that most tend to look at the system as a series of objects. They do not look at what could be happening internally at the atomic level. Here I use infinite element analysis to look at each atom/electron... what it's doing, why it's doing it and what the effect is.

For example, once we understand the process of how a linear electron motion transforms into an oscillatory molecular motion (heat) it's not that difficult to avoid the transformation. However most never go that far and tend to generalize everything into basically meaningless terms such as "heat" or "resistance". For example, heat is not a substance or a fluid and it does not flow. Heat is a measure of molecular motion and temperature a measure of the average molecular motion. Should we be averaging and generalizing everything until it makes no sense at all?.

It's important to understand that all matter is a fog of different particles moving at high velocity in a perfect vacuum. This is the nature of matter and we should see it and treat it as such. So in fact this simple two capacitor experiment contains many paradoxes and shows there is magnitudes more energy present than most presumed... most are looking in the wrong places.

I will revisit some of it in my two capacitor thread.

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: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
I don't see the paradoxes either.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
Surely I don't need to show you the way the field drop off with distance off the end of a solenoidal coil!
Do you mean the flux density or flux direction like inside the red ellipse below ?



It is well known that a dipole of moment u endures a force Fx = u.dB/dx.cos(theta) where theta is the angle between u and B.
But that will rotate the electron's axis, won't it ?

It doesn't accelerate the electrons (it does between collisions) it's a drift velocity. 
Does it accelerate between collisions centripetally or linearly ?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Do you mean the flux density or flux direction like inside the red ellipse below ?
Denied access to that image.  But see my image below where I am clearly dealing with the variation of flux passing through a loop. 
Quote
But that will rotate the electron's axis, won't it ?
No, this is a linear force not a torque.
Quote
Does it accelerate between collisions centripetally or linearly ?
Linearly.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2050
Smudge
I found an example of the two capacitor paradox which is more in line with my reasoning...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5034.pdf     The Paradox of Two Charged Capacitors – A New Perspective

As the author suggests, the production of heat/radiation/switching losses is a built in assumption and a form of circular reasoning. That is, the conclusion was drawn first and all details then built around that conclusion as a bias. The authors setup is similar to the one I proposed where there are no connection wires or switch and the two parallel capacitor plates simply change in area. Now we can exclude radiation and most ohmic heating effects and whatever is left is our answer.

As we can see the solution is based on a change in area of the capacitor plates producing a change in charge density. If the plate area doubles the charge density is reduced to one half thus the energy is reduced to one half. To be clear, the fundamental cause of the drop in energy is because the charge density was reduced and anything else is after the fact.

Which begs the question why everyone was so obsessed with the switch/connecting wires and not the capacitors themselves?.

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: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Anyone up to trying this?  I don't have the facilities for doing experiments.  This magnet motor looks like it might work.  I have been playing with FEMM a lot recently and one thing I have found is a problem with its torque calculations.  As explained in the attached pdf there are two methods, and for this device they give widely different values (not so for for normal shaped rotors, but especially so for this S shaped one).  And I am inclined to believe the larger value that predicts this system will free run and produce usable power.  You need a steel cylinder within which the S shaped rotor revolves.  The rotor is made from three NdFeB magnets and two quadrant shaped steel pieces.   In the images shown the torque is CCW, which is the positive rotation direction in FEMM.  And before the naysayers ask where does the energy come from I will point out that the rotor moves within a field coming from the stator magnetization, even though that is induced from the rotor.  Thus we have a rotor moving through the field from the stationary array of atomic dipoles in the stator.  And that movement can "load" the atomic current loops in the rotor as outlined at the start of this thread, and that is were the energy comes from.

Smudge
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40
Hi Smudge can you please check whether you designed your rotor rotation around the X0.0 and Y0.0 coordinate of femm? I also did the simulation and found next to no torque so wanted to check a few things.

My femm file is included. Can you please share yours?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Hi Nali,
Yes the motor has 0,0 as it's center and the torque is about that origin.  Your torque value is not insignificant, it could easily create a free running thingy to use as a desk toy.  However it is negative whereas it should be positive.  I am pretty sure that if you rotated your rotor say 1 degree you would get a different value.  And if you did this a number of times you would find the value swinging positive and negative, i.e. it is very noisy and I think that indicates the poor quality of the block integral torque method.  (I assume that was the block integral method, correct me if I am wrong).  Have you tried the line integral method yet?  I think you will find this less noisy and will yield a positive torque averaged over a number of rotor angles.  I am writing this on my tablet and do not have access to my FEMM file at the moment, I will send it tomorrow.  I used a linear material for the steel to save on computation time.
Regards
Smudge
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40
Yes this is the block method. I did not even know about the line method and it results in vastly different values. The line method gives about 4Nm.
Not really sure which method is "real". I think a build is the only real way to know whether this works or not.

I have to say I would be pretty surprised if this actually works since to me it is a "constant reluctance device". There does not really appear to be a "more favorable" position for the rotor to rotate to.
Should be easy to build though!



Hi Nali,
Yes the motor has 0,0 as it's center and the torque is about that origin.  Your torque value is not insignificant, it could easily create a free running thingy to use as a desk toy.  However it is negative whereas it should be positive.  I am pretty sure that if you rotated your rotor say 1 degree you would get a different value.  And if you did this a number of times you would find the value swinging positive and negative, i.e. it is very noisy and I think that indicates the poor quality of the block integral torque method.  (I assume that was the block integral method, correct me if I am wrong).  Have you tried the line integral method yet?  I think you will find this less noisy and will yield a positive torque averaged over a number of rotor angles.  I am writing this on my tablet and do not have access to my FEMM file at the moment, I will send it tomorrow.  I used a linear material for the steel to save on computation time.
Regards
Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Yes this is the block method. I did not even know about the line method and it results in vastly different values. The line method gives about 4Nm.
Not really sure which method is "real".
I have several books on EM theory and I understand that the stress tensor has to be taken on the air side of the ferromagnetic/air boundary and very close to it.  The block integral method does not draw the measurement contour close to the surface, but the line integral method does.
Quote
I think a build is the only real way to know whether this works or not.
I agree and that is why I started this thread.

Quote
I have to say I would be pretty surprised if this actually works since to me it is a "constant reluctance device". There does not really appear to be a "more favorable" position for the rotor to rotate to.
You could say the same for the rotor in the Faraday disc motor.  But the torque there is easily calculated from Ampere's Law on the currents in the rotor.  And as I say in my introductory paper you can use Ampere's Law for the surface current equivalents for magnetized material to get forces and torque.  To do this you have to place the surface currents in the external magnetic field applied to the currents (you ignore the field that the current is producing.  In this S shaped rotor the same would apply, you could use an S shaped air cored solenoid placed within the field coming from the magnetized stator treating that as an external field (even though the magnetization comes from the presence of the rotor).  So I think there could be something good here.

This forum will not accept FEMM files, if you PM me with your email account I will send it to you that way
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 811
line integral method does.
I agree and that is why I started this thread.

It seemed so simple yet as always so elusive. Nali is right.

My build  does a perfect scale up of your sketch and comes out at an 8 inch diameter. A brake drum from about a '50's Hillman is 8 inches! The magnets are 1/2 X 3/4 X 1 1/2 inch neo's stacked up in two's.

It does not turn, nudged in either direction and it makes barely a half turn after a brisk shove. It actually seems to lock in to where ever you put it. There is no spinning of the shaft with ones fingers. In Arthur's toroid with even stronger magnets I can spin the shaft with my fingers easily. This has a preferred direction... locked.

Sorry to be so negative but this is what I see.

Ron

 
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3050
Quote from: Smudge
This forum will not accept FEMM files...

If the file is not too large simply append it with an accepted filetype (eg, ,rtf) which can be easily removed by the recipient to read the file properly.




---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-07, 21:43:48