Energy from electron spin

[Smudge]

With the Holcomb devices supposedly using electron spin I decided to start this new thread here.  In 2013 I looked at the Surface Magneto-Electric Effect (SME) and thought this might be a route to OU.  I made a patent application that didn't get followed up to a full patent so it is now in the public domain should any one be interested (application number 􀀜1319429.5 to the UK Intellectual Property Office).  I intended to approach a manufacturer of wound foil capacitors to make a special type of capacitor using Fe and Al foil strip as the electrodes, and prepared a PowerPoint presentation for that.  But it never happened due to family commitments.  Only recently did I realize that the Unruh/Coler Stromerzeuger could possibly be explained by the SME so I edited the presentation to include that.  As I couldn't get onto my bench (I kept getting error messages) I posted it on the "Where does the energy come from" thread https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4295.0;attach=44793.  I have opened this thread to receive any comments and for any discussions that might arise.

Smudge

[Smudge]

One of the Unruh/Coler devices was the Magnetstrom Apparat.  This used coils wound onto magnets.  Insulation on early forms of Cu wire was silk thread closely wound onto the wire, only later did enamel coatings get applied.  It has been pointed out that the anomalous behaviour of the Magnetstrom Apparat was probably due to this silk coating absorbing atmospheric water to become an electrolyte so that the Cu-ferromagnetic metal acted like a battery.  If the Stromerzeuger also used silk coated wire for the coils wound onto the large Fe rods it is possible that the water not only increased the capacity between Fe and coil but also influenced the Surface Magneto-electric Effect to advantage.  As there is evidence that the original Stromerzeuger was independently examined and measured by two separate organizations and eminent professors and was found to be OU, I think the SME should be seriously considered and studied to see whether OU can be obtained.

Smudge

[Hakasays]

I love that the paper manages to bridge the two worlds, between atomic-level theory and practical engineering+construction using standard'ish theory+formulas, just applied in a unique way.   That way each step can be modeled as one goes from conventional to 'sci-fi'.

There's a lot of material though, gonna have to simmer on it a while.   Thanks for posting it, I don't think I've seen that paper before (or maybe I just never read it in the right context. )

[Centraflow]

Smudge

Here is the complete report.

I believe that the Steven Mark device is of this principle.

When SM sort of disappeared off the scene, the only way of contact was via his lawyers, in Germany!!!!!! according to Lindsay.

The way it works is still open to debate.

Regards

Mike

https://rimstar.org/sdenergy/coler/index.htm

[Smudge]

Mike,

I have a photo copy of that report obtained from the UK national archives.   I have also visited the archives and retrieved all their data on Coler and the work he did in the UK after the war.  He was contracted to build a stromerzeuger.  There was some controversy at the UK MOD hierarchy because the guys at the top were not keen on this work going ahead as they were brainwashed by the top scientists into believing that was a waste of time and money.  The scientists lower down the food chain got their way but unfortunately Coler died of a heart attack before getting anywhere in this work.  I have a copy of Coler's death certificate, he died while staying at a small hotel or guest house at Farnborough.   It is clear to me that Coler had the wrong ideas as to why it worked and was really stumbling about in the dark.  The independent measurements mentioned in that report are of significance.  Although at that early time their test equipment was rudimentary by today's standards, they did do their best to eliminate errors.  They realized that  the load lamp was receiving RF and their meters could not accurately measure voltage and current.  One test was to compare the light output from the load lamp with an identical one driven by an adjustable DC source where their instruments could measure power accurately.  They definitely recorded OU.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

@Smudge

You did a great job of putting together all the pieces of the "Coler" folder, which I had downloaded a few years ago, and looked at closely.
While I don't think we'll be able to get anything out of most of the alleged "FE" machines of the past, if we were to keep just one, it would be "Coler". I think that the "Coler" case is the one where there is the least risk of fraud, and the most credible testimony.
Linking it to electron spin as you did in your paper "Electron Spin, a Source of Energy?" seems to me a relevant idea to explore.

[Centraflow]

Mike,

I have a photo copy of that report obtained from the UK national archives.   I have also visited the archives and retrieved all their data on Coler and the work he did in the UK after the war.  He was contracted to build a stromerzeuger.  There was some controversy at the UK MOD hierarchy because the guys at the top were not keen on this work going ahead as they were brainwashed by the top scientists into believing that was a waste of time and money.  The scientists lower down the food chain got their way but unfortunately Coler died of a heart attack before getting anywhere in this work.  I have a copy of Coler's death certificate, he died while staying at a small hotel or guest house at Farnborough.   It is clear to me that Coler had the wrong ideas as to why it worked and was really stumbling about in the dark.  The independent measurements mentioned in that report are of significance.  Although at that early time their test equipment was rudimentary by today's standards, they did do their best to eliminate errors.  They realized that  the load lamp was receiving RF and their meters could not accurately measure voltage and current.  One test was to compare the light output from the load lamp with an identical one driven by an adjustable DC source where their instruments could measure power accurately.  They definitely recorded OU.

Smudge

Hi Smudge

Thanks for the reply.

STEAP, which is my work on the SM unit, is very extensive. The one thing that is needed is what he called a catalyst, I found that the catalyst is a paramagnetic metal, and you know what happens inside a paramagnetic metal when it is inside a magnetic field. I have used aluminum and in the last year, Tin coated copper, Tin and aluminum have a free electron.

I purposely have been what you might call elusive on the exact details of how this is done. SM used magnets in the first two of his units, thereafter only solenoid coils producing an alternating magnetic field. SM specifically stated not to use iron anywhere in or near the unit, I found out why about 18 months ago.

My problem was how to extract the energy until I realised it was all in electrons creating positive and negative ions and then switching OFF to collect the excess energy for a specific time before switching back ON again and recycling.

Regards

Mike

[Smudge]

@F6.  I agree.  The fact that Coler had to shock the thing into self oscillation by intermittent contact to the battery is exactly to be expected if the SME effect is the answer.  Of course at that time the SME effect was not known.  Coler used high purity Fe and certainly Fe is now one of the materials of choice for obtaining spin polarized electrons in spintronic applications.  It should be a fairly simple experiment using a single Fe rod to establish that the SME effect is detectable and of what magnitude.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

@smudge
There is one point in your text "Electron Spin, a Source of Energy?" on which I do not agree: it is the question of "anomalous energy".

You write that the energy density B²/(2.µ0) becomes in the case of the superposition of the field of a permanent magnet and the field of a coil, (Bm+Bc)²/(2.µ0)=(Bm²+2.Bm.Bc+Bc²), this is correct. But when you write that 2.Bm.Bc is "anomalous energy", it is wrong.
Your formula is the energy density at a given point. If you want to know the total energy, you must integrate the density over the whole volume surrounding the magnet and the coil. And there you will see that if there are places where the fields add up, and therefore where the energy would quadruple when the fields are of equal amplitude, there are also places where they oppose each other.

This case is exactly, for the static, what we see with the waves in the interferences. Where the interference is additive, we have the double of the field amplitude, so the energy is quadrupled. But where the interference is destructive, the field is zero. Statistically over the whole space, the total energy remains the sum of the energies of the two fields which are superimposed.
The fact that in one place, more energy than the sum of the two taken independently can be recovered when the fields overlap, is therefore not proof of an abnormal energy but proof of a redistribution of the energy in space.

However, this does not invalidate the idea that spin and SME may be at work in the Coler device.

[Smudge]

@smudge
There is one point in your text "Electron Spin, a Source of Energy?" on which I do not agree: it is the question of "anomalous energy".

You write that the energy density B²/(2.µ0) becomes in the case of the superposition of the field of a permanent magnet and the field of a coil, (Bm+Bc)²/(2.µ0)=(Bm²+2.Bm.Bc+Bc²), this is correct. But when you write that 2.Bm.Bc is "anomalous energy", it is wrong.
Your formula is the energy density at a given point. If you want to know the total energy, you must integrate the density over the whole volume surrounding the magnet and the coil. And there you will see that if there are places where the fields add up, and therefore where the energy would quadruple when the fields are of equal amplitude, there are also places where they oppose each other.

I take the case of a solenoidal coil closely wound where the total energy resides in the B field outside of the conductor material.  Being closely wound the field between the turns adds little to that total, it can be considered as a current sheet.  That coil is wound onto a magnet where its B field total energy is also within that same space.  And the two field from the two current sheets have the same field pattern, hence they do not oppose each other.  Because the two current sheets cannot occupy the same space, the regions where the field patterns are not coincident is very close to the sheets, and particularly in the space between the two concentric sheets.  I chose to ignore their contributions to the total energy.  I think my approach is validated when you consider the case of two coils closely coupled e.g. by bifilar winding.  One coil represents the magnet, the other represents the coil wound onto the magnet.  Ignoring resistive losses the magnet coil supplies two pulses of energy.  The first pulse is when it is energized so as to represent the magnet.  The second pulse is when the other coil is energized.   If our simulated magnet supplies that second pulse of energy, then surely the magnet must also do so.  And that pulse of energy exactly accounts for what I called the anomalous term.

This case is exactly, for the static, what we see with the waves in the interferences. Where the interference is additive, we have the double of the field amplitude, so the energy is quadrupled. But where the interference is destructive, the field is zero. Statistically over the whole space, the total energy remains the sum of the energies of the two fields which are superimposed.
The fact that in one place, more energy than the sum of the two taken independently can be recovered when the fields overlap, is therefore not proof of an abnormal energy but proof of a redistribution of the energy in space.

But where does that second pulse of energy go?

However, this does not invalidate the idea that spin and SME may be at work in the Coler device.

Good!

[F6FLT]

@Smudge

We cannot assume that the field from a coil would be strictly equivalent to the field of the magnet, which is the result of the superposition of the fields of each electron spin, whose equivalent in ampere-turn is not even known. We only know the macroscopic value in ampere-turns, which may be a very small residual value compared to the sum of the ampere-turns of each electron spin.

This is a problem we have in modeling radio antennas: we cannot say "I would like such a field, calculate the current densities and their configuration necessary to generate it". One of the reasons is theoretical: the same field can be generated with different current density configurations, there is no unique solution. So a configuration of fields that look the same, like the coil and the magnet, says nothing about the currents.

If we see each spin as a loop of constant current, and since apparently we cannot induce in these loops a current that would add or subtract from the natural one, it is because these loops behave as superconducting loops that evacuate the external magnetic field. The only action on the spins that will result from an external field is therefore a torque.

If you have 2 identical coils ideally coupled, then the EMF will be the same in both, by the virtue that E=-dΦ/dt. It depends only on the flux variation, and the flux is shared and strictly the same for both coils. If you send a pulse in one coil, then you have the same in the other. If this is not the case, then you are not in the assumed case: the coils are insufficiently coupled and it is the coupling defect that explains the observation. Different EMFs in two coupled coils imply that they are not perfectly coupled, and if they are not, it is because the topology of their fields is not exactly the same.

The conclusion of all this is that there is no objective reason to suppose that the effect of the current in a coil around a magnet would have any other effect than to exert a torque on the electron spins.

[Hakasays]

I'm really digging the synchronicity this 'electron spin' concept has with other inventors+devices.. 

[Smudge]

@Smudge

We cannot assume that the field from a coil would be strictly equivalent to the field of the magnet, which is the result of the superposition of the fields of each electron spin, whose equivalent in ampere-turn is not even known. We only know the macroscopic value in ampere-turns, which may be a very small residual value compared to the sum of the ampere-turns of each electron spin.

I disagree.  It is known that a cylindrical magnet can be replaced hi a thin walled cylindrical current sheet.  You can perform simulations to show this to be true and the fields are identical.

If we see each spin as a loop of constant current, and since apparently we cannot induce in these loops a current that would add or subtract from the natural one, it is because these loops behave as superconducting loops that evacuate the external magnetic field. The only action on the spins that will result from an external field is therefore a torque.

I think your torque here is the one trying to alter the spin axis when the applied field is across that axis.  What happens when the applied field is along that axis?  In your superconducting loop model we do get induced current into the loop so your model is incorrect for electron spin.  My model is a superconducting loop connected to a constant current generator so the current remains constant.  The applied field passing through the loop creates induced voltage.

If you have 2 identical coils ideally coupled, then the EMF will be the same in both, by the virtue that E=-dΦ/dt. It depends only on the flux variation, and the flux is shared and strictly the same for both coils. If you send a pulse in one coil, then you have the same in the other. If this is not the case, then you are not in the assumed case: the coils are insufficiently coupled and it is the coupling defect that explains the observation. Different EMFs in two coupled coils imply that they are not perfectly coupled, and if they are not, it is because the topology of their fields is not exactly the same.

You have completely missed my point about the pulse timings.  Coil 1 is energised first and this corresponds to the magnet being originally magnetized,  At this time coil 2 doesn't exist.  Coil 2 is energised later then both coils see the same flux change.  So the power source of each coil supply energy.  That is not what you describe above

Smudge

[Smudge]

The equivalent surface current of a permanent magnet has been known in science for some time, yet is totally ignored in modern analyses of permanent magnet systems.  The B field both internal and external to a cylindrical permanent magnet is identical to that of an infinitely thin current sheet at the cylindrical surface of the magnet.  If anyone doubts this they can perform finite element analyses using ever finer meshes and ever thinner current sheets (at the expense of ever increasing computer running times) and compare the fields with that from a permanent magnet modelled as a material with a known coercivity.  In effect the magnet can be modelled as a thin walled cylinder of super-conductive material carrying a known current around its curved surface.

Some people conceive this super-conductor model as a closed loop of super-conductive material carrying a constant current, but that is incorrect.  For such a closed loop there cannot be any induced voltage, it is always zero, so when another magnetic field is applied to the loop the loop current must change to keep the flux through the loop at a constant value.  A close super-conductive loop has constant flux, not constant current.  A permanent magnet can have a changed value of flux, this is known and accepted theory.  If we apply an external field to the magnet it responds like air, it has a relative permeability of unity.  The proper model for a permanent magnet is a super-conductive loop connected to a perfect constant current generator.  A perfect current generator has infinite internal impedance hence the current remains constant independent of the load.  What is not constant is the voltage delivered by the generator, and for the generator to deliver zero power the voltage must be zero.  Thus the off condition for a current generator considered as a power source is a short circuit.  In our world where all the known power sources are voltage generators many people have difficulty in perceiving this aspect of an off condition; if our houses were supplied from current generators our off switch would be a short circuit connected across each appliance!

Turning to the super-conductive loop connected to a perfect constant current generator, the loop is a short circuit so under static conditions the current generator delivers zero power.  Only when the magnetic field through the loop changes value due to the application of an external field does the generator see an induced voltage and either deliver or receive power depending on the polarity of the induced voltage.  I make no apology for modelling a permanent magnet in this way where the current generator clearly represents all the atomic dipole current loops responsible for the magnetism.  Each atomic current loop has a fixed known dipole moment, and that means the loop current is a fixed value, so the model for each loop is a constant current generator connected to a super-conductive loop.  And those atomic current loops can both deliver and receive power as I have described above.  Electron spin is a form of current loop so I make no apology for suggesting a model where each spinning electron can be considered as a spinning spherical charge driven by some sort of motor.

Moving to the coil around the magnet model the magnetic field energy everywhere both external and internal to the coil+magnet has the three energy density components I stated.  And there is no doubt that what I called the anomalous term comes from the magnet, not the coil.  You only have to consider the case where the current through the coil exactly cancels the internal and external fields.  There is now no magnetic energy there, yet we have supplied considerable energy into the coil.  Where has that energy gone?  I claim it has gone into the quantum domain via the atomic current loops. I do not accept that it has gone into the space between the surface of the magnet and the coil conductors as that can be modelled by finite element analysis to show it not to be true.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

@Smudge

You're reasoning at the macroscopic level, when I was talking at the atomic level. The global field of the magnet can be simulated by a cylindrical current, I agree, but this says nothing about the fields at the atomic level, at the level of the spins.
It is well known that in different magnetic domains, spins are oriented differently from each other. To believe that in a magnet all the spins would be perfectly aligned in the field axis is not realistic. If there were only two spins participating in the field, at 90° from each other, you could perfectly assimilate the two spins to one magnet, whose field would be at 45° from the other two. It is clear that in these conditions, the equivalent current in amperes/turn is not equivalent to the sum of those of the two spins, and that an external field in the axis of the resulting field will not be in the axis of the spins.

As I said, the knowledge of the current allows to know the field, but the knowledge of the field does not allow to know the current, only a global equivalent, arbitrarily chosen here as a cylindrical current when one could take others, for example 2 Helmholtz coils, which would lead to the same result but simulated by a current density of different configuration, here a double ring current.

It is not coherent on the one hand to talk about spin which is a quantum concept, and on the other hand to limit oneself to a macroscopic view of classical physics, that of the oversimplified magnet.
We have no certainty about the exact axis of the spins, we only know that statistically, the resultant is in the axis of the macroscopic field.

Then it is true, as you said, that a superconducting loop will modify its current to maintain the constancy of the flux which crosses it (I admit my mistake on this point, I interchanged current and flux). On the other hand, the effect of a magnetic field, whether it is variable or not, also has a torque effect on a magnetic dipole. So there is no reason to favour the idea of an induced current in the spin over the idea that the external field will make the spins rotate because the electrons are not rigidly bound to the atoms.

What allows you to affirm that these magnetic dipoles that constitute the electron spins, are and remain well in the axis of the external field rather than to compose with it and between them their orientation while maintaining constant their individual current?

[forest]

Simple question : electron spin in ferromagnetic material atom is tilted by external magnetic field ?
What if this is the method of extracting energy from external field ? Thus spin is not the source but a medium to tap ambient energy.

[F6FLT]

NMR is the obvious answer that an electron spin is tilted by an external field.

Without being the source, a spin could be a vector allowing us to act on an unknown source of energy, which we can suppose in the case of the Coler machine, if the facts prove to be true, which must be our goal to verify it.

[Smudge]

@Smudge

You're reasoning at the macroscopic level, when I was talking at the atomic level. The global field of the magnet can be simulated by a cylindrical current, I agree, but this says nothing about the fields at the atomic level, at the level of the spins.
It is well known that in different magnetic domains, spins are oriented differently from each other. To believe that in a magnet all the spins would be perfectly aligned in the field axis is not realistic.

I am not taking about all the spins, and certainly not all the spins within atoms.  I have repeatedly said the spins that are responsible for the permanent magnetism.  And when fully magnetized all those spins are aligned.

If there were only two spins participating in the field, at 90° from each other, you could perfectly assimilate the two spins to one magnet, whose field would be at 45° from the other two. It is clear that in these conditions, the equivalent current in amperes/turn is not equivalent to the sum of those of the two spins, and that an external field in the axis of the resulting field will not be in the axis of the spins.

But the magnet does not consist of just two spins, it consists of many.  And we already know that spins do not actually align with the local magnetic field but obey quantum rules whereby they are at an angle (not 45 degrees) and they precess about the field vector at the Larmor frequency.  But the many different phases of their off axis direction means that we do not see any off axis magnetization except when their Larmor phases are made to coincide.  Thus it is reasonable to imagine an array of many effective spins (actually a small number compared to all the atomic spins) that are aligned.

As I said, the knowledge of the current allows to know the field, but the knowledge of the field does not allow to know the current, only a global equivalent, arbitrarily chosen here as a cylindrical current when one could take others, for example 2 Helmholtz coils, which would lead to the same result but simulated by a current density of different configuration, here a double ring current.

That is just nonsense, there is no way that the field around a Helmholtz double ring current is the same as that around a cylindrical current.  The only possible other current density models are concentric current cylinders, i.e. cylindrical currents within the magnet volume having current density that is a function of radius.  That in no way affects my arguments.

It is not coherent on the one hand to talk about spin which is a quantum concept, and on the other hand to limit oneself to a macroscopic view of classical physics, that of the oversimplified magnet.
We have no certainty about the exact axis of the spins, we only know that statistically, the resultant is in the axis of the macroscopic field

Then it is true, as you said, that a superconducting loop will modify its current to maintain the constancy of the flux which crosses it (I admit my mistake on this point, I interchanged current and flux). On the other hand, the effect of a magnetic field, whether it is variable or not, also has a torque effect on a magnetic dipole. So there is no reason to favour the idea of an induced current in the spin over the idea that the external field will make the spins rotate because the electrons are not rigidly bound to the atoms.

What allows you to affirm that these magnetic dipoles that constitute the electron spins, are and remain well in the axis of the external field rather than to compose with it and between them their orientation while maintaining constant their individual current?

In arguing against my oversimplified view of spins, you have dodged the issue that the magnet can be made to give up energy to its external world or receive energy from its external world (my anomalous energy density component), and that this is happening all the time in electrical machines.  Classical physics has also dodged this issue.  I have tried to give an explanation as to how this occurs treating the spins as sources of energy.  I see from your latest post that you have taken a half-way house view, that the spins can be a means to access an unknown source of energy.  I'll go with that since the unknown source must be the aether, or the virtual particles that make up the aether.

Incidentally you mention NMR and if you go back to the 1948 early work on NMR you will find reference to radiated RF energy exceeding input energy.

Smudge

[Smudge]

The attached document is interesting because it gives you the thickness dimension of the surface spins in units of Angstrom, see figure 2.  Note that this is for unmagnetized Fe  where the polarized spins appear naturally at the surface and this is being offered as a possible way to magnetize the Fe by the application of an electric field.  With magnetized Fe where the surface charges will take on their spin-polarization from the bulk magnetization the densities of those surface spins are much greater than the values shown.  For partially magnetized Fe (i.e. not fully saturated) with an applied alternating electric field the induced alternating surface polarization could be magnified by the Fe permeability to create much greater surface magnetization than that determined simply by the surface charge density multiplied by u_B/e where e is electron charge and u_B is the Bohr magneton.  Pure Fe can have relative permeability in the order of 10⁵.  Calculations show that this surface magnetization effect is not pie in the sky, there is a real possibility that it can lead somewhere.

Smudge

[Grumpy]

Why don't you both do an experiment:

(You'll need some sort of container that can safely protect you if the magnet explodes...seriously.)

1. Wrap several turns of magnet wire around a bar magnet.
2. Wrap several turns of a second wire (larger diameter?) around the first coil. Same direction. This is the output coil.
3. Apply HV DC pulses (1.5kv or more) to the first coil and see what you get out on the second coil.
4. Expect the magnet to move (i.e jerk around uncontrollably)

Somehow, the HV pulses cause the magnetic field to "change", i.e. become stronger. 
I always thought it might have something to do with electron spin...
Energia Celeste developed this into a patented (I know that is not definitive...) excess energy device.
So, at some parameters, you may get more power in the output coil than you are applying with pulses.

At some unknown pulse rate, the magnet will come apart in tiny pieces.  I do not know what pulse rate this happens, hence the protective box.

[F6FLT]

...I have repeatedly said the spins that are responsible for the permanent magnetism.  And when fully magnetized all those spins are aligned.

This is repeating and denying objections, rather than answering them. "Fully magnetized all those spins are aligned" is a tautology. And "all those spins are aligned" is false. Spins can have different orientations from the macroscopic field, this is the case in magnetic domains.
I don't see the point of denying this fact since it is the statistical average orientation that counts, so an external field could induce a current in the loop that is the spin even if it is not perfectly aligned, it doesn't even contradict your main point.

But the many different phases of their off axis direction means that we do not see any off axis magnetization except when their Larmor phases are made to coincide.  Thus it is reasonable to imagine an array of many effective spins (actually a small number compared to all the atomic spins) that are aligned.

Obviously, because we only see the macroscopic component, the resultant of the magnetic dipoles of all the electron spins. But the vector resultant of superimposed dipolar magnetic fields, in this case those of the spins, do not imply their alignment in this axis, this is elementary vector math. The resultant of vectors might not even be in the axis of any of them. But again, this is secondary, it doesn't contradict your main point.

That is just nonsense, there is no way that the field around a Helmholtz double ring current is the same as that around a cylindrical current. 

Look at the field lines of Helmholtz coils: they rather closely follow those of a solenoid. This is perhaps not as good an approximation as the cylindrical current, but certainly not nonsense.
To believe that there is only one way to model a field is a mistake. The proof is obvious: with the billions of billions of magnetic loops that constitute the spins in a magnet, one can inversely model a macroscopic field! With only one thousandth of this number, it can be modeled in the same way. The same field can be obtained in an infinite number of ways. Again, this does not contradict your main point.

But to the question that may contradict your point:
"What allows you to affirm that these magnetic dipoles that constitute the electron spins, are and remain well in the axis of the external field rather than to compose with it and between them their orientation while maintaining constant their individual current?"
Where would be your factual answer?
Why wouldn't the spins keep their current constant, and respond to the external field by re-orienting themselves, while of course keeping their dominant in the axis of the macroscopic field? For this too is compatible with observations. So do we have experiments that would prove that the current in the spin could change? No answer. Too bad, because your main point is based on this crucial point.

Until proven otherwise, the magnetic moment of the electron is considered constant, which implies the constancy of the current when we see the spin as a current loop.
I understand that you assume that the current in the spin can vary, but it is necessary to say that this is only a hypothesis, not a fact, and to stop denying the objections arising from different hypotheses that are more in line with the currently accepted theories.

[Smudge]

@F6,
I do not assume the current in the spin can vary. I take it to be constant as supplied from a current generator, that current generator being a model for how the aether keeps the spin going.  What I do assume is a changing voltage across the current generator induced by the applied field from the coil.
Smudge

[F6FLT]

@Smudge

Then I don't understand the hypothesis anymore. If the current in the spin is supposed to be constant, how could this current generator be "informed" of a change in external magnetic flux, and how could it react, when it is through the spin that it expresses itself ("energy from electron spin") and this spin does not change?
In other words, if the spin is immutable, what is the nature of the coupling of an external source to this current generator from aether?

[Smudge]

@F6,
With the spin as a current loop connected to a current generator any change of flux through that loop will induce a voltage into the loop thus causing the generator to deliver power.  The energy delivered appears as the anomalous component in the external field that is applied to the loop.  To me this is so obvious that I do not understand your difficulty in following my argument.  An electron has a size dimension and even though small it presents an area to the applied field thus having a quantity of flux passing through it.  How else can that external field gain that anomalous energy component?  The fact that the anomalous component is exactly accounted for by the equivalent surface current model of the magnet tells me it must come from those spins.  As to how the active aether is the source that drives the spins I am sure there could be a number of models there.  My aether consists of an enormous density of massless particles like neutrinos whizzing through space at light velocity.  They carry two vector quantities, one being their momentum and the other their spin.  Any single particle can have its spin vector at any angle relative to its momentum, it's actual angle comes from its history of its emission from a mass particle such as an electron.  Mass particles continually absorb and emit aether particles according to rules of engagement that cause the emitted particle to account for EM waves and gravitational waves that have wave-particle duality.  It is the momentum of the aether particle that is the secret to how cam aether waves apply a force.  If the emission direction is different to the arrival direction then their is a force on the electron.  The aether particles could well have rules of engagement with electrons that act to keep that spin going at a constant rate.
Smudge

[Smudge]

After doing more calculations on the Stromerzeuger I am now of the opinion that for sufficient spin polarized electrons to be brought to the surface of the Fe rods the capacitance between the coil and the rod needs to be very high, more in the realms of electrolytic capacitors.  This takes me back to the original coils being silk coated absorbing moisture and the Fe surface being oxidized so that electrolytic action could account for high capacitance.  If that is true then Coler was going nowhere in 1946 when he was using enameled coated wire.  Maybe his failure to replicate gave him the heart attack.  I am reaching the conclusion that this work requires a special electrolytic capacitor having Fe as one electrode, so more difficult to do than I realized.  But still a promising route to go.

Smudge