PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2023-02-01, 05:38:04
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Generator using a superconductor  (Read 1753 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
Here is an exploded view of a scheme to investigate this form of induction that requires a current to be present in the conductor that then "conjures up" a voltage from the A field.  When the magnetized ring cores are put at the ends of the elongated toroid the force on the moving electrons in the wire supports the current flow and that reduces the resistance.  If that truly occurs then this is a breakthrough in science as it has never before been either predicted or demonstrated.  I will follow this up with more details of cores and dimensions in case anyone wants to get involved in this breakthrough.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1807
I can hardly see how the A-lines would be oriented in relation to the toroidal coil.


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3905
tExB=qr
The A-field is parallel with the wire?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1597
Here is an exploded view of a scheme to investigate this form of induction that requires a current to be present in the conductor that then "conjures up" a voltage from the A field.  When the magnetized ring cores are put at the ends of the elongated toroid the force on the moving electrons in the wire supports the current flow and that reduces the resistance.  If that truly occurs then this is a breakthrough in science as it has never before been either predicted or demonstrated.  I will follow this up with more details of cores and dimensions in case anyone wants to get involved in this breakthrough.

Smudge

Smudge,

So essentially, the effect is detected by a lowering of the wire resistance compared to ambient after a given running period?

Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
I can hardly see how the A-lines would be oriented in relation to the toroidal coil.
Look at the image in my reply #19.
Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
Smudge,

So essentially, the effect is detected by a lowering of the wire resistance compared to ambient after a given running period?

Pm
It does not need a running period.  You have to apply a current in order to measure the resistance and the effect is instantaneous.  If we look further ahead to the use of superconducting wire then we need not apply a current, thermal noise starts the process then the current builds up to a high value representing free energy in the inductance of the coil.

Another variation of this trial experiment uses soft cores with windings driven with AC so that the A field varies at a cyclic rate.  When a DC current is applied to the elongated toroid we should see an AC voltage.  By varying the frequency and noting that the voltage amplitude remains constant shows that this voltage is not coming from the time-changing A field by normal transformer action.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1807
@Smudge

I have verified, in the case where the gradient of A is on the same x-axis as A and the velocity vector V of the charge, that no electric field can appear seen from the charge.

Using SR it is clear that there appears an electric field derived from a scalar potential appearing at the charge due to its motion in A, and which opposes -v.∂A/∂x

The sad thing is that I had noticed the advent of this scalar potential when we were talking about the Marinov generator then it slipped my mind.

This only condemns for the moment the idea when A and v are on the same axis, I haven't done the calculation in the general case when Ay and Az are non-zero or when the velocity of the charge is not collinear to A, but it is likely to be true in the general case too :(. For details, see https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4389.msg103488;topicseen#msg103488, an error is always possible, I'm still available to discuss it.



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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
@F6,

It would be interesting to do that analysis for the case where A has curl where presumably it will not show a scalar potential with gradient (E field) that can negate the known force vector at right angles to the moving charge.  Or better still does show an induced E field force that is equal in magnitude and adds to the force predicted from E = -dAx/dt*dx/dt, thus accounting for the fact that using that formula only gives half the correct answer obtained from E = v X B.

Smudge 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1807
@Smudge

Playing on the 3 coordinates will not be easy. I may try first with a simpler idea that seems to me to have been evoked when we were talking about Marinov: to see if we can have the equivalent of the Lorentz force where B=0 and A≠0, for example when a charge moves radially away from a long solenoid or a cylindrical magnet, crossing a transverse A whose amplitude reduces with the distance.



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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
@F6,
I have run my FEM simulation for a current along a circular path within a uniform B field where the forces are everywhere radial and equal in magnitude (B field normal to the plane of the loop).  At each point along the path it finds the change in A magnitude, for adjacent points it takes the difference to get dA/dl, multiplies that by a known velocity then uses the direction of the A field to get the E direction, then resolves that into two components, along and at right angles to the path.  It also looks for change in A vector direction between the two points that gives a rotation for which the rotation velocity omega can be deduced.  An E field at right angles to that rotation of magnitude omega*A is also resolved into tangential and normal components.  The two tangential components are equal and opposite so they sum to zero.  The two normal components sum to a fixed value.  That value is exactly (within the error limits of the finite element program) half that given by E = v X B.  I suspect that your finding that the velocity can "conjure up" an apparent scalar potential that gives another E value to be summed to that deduced as described could resolve that dilemma, but only if it is opposite in polarity to the one you deduce.  I am trying to educate myself in the ways of 4 vectors and matrix determinants to see if I can resolve this.

Smudge   
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1807
Smudge, thanks for your feedback about FEMM.

I guess FEMM is based on Maxwell's equations, which are relativistic, completely compatible with special relativity. I just found an instructive WEB page explaining this Maxwell/SR equivalence (and their incompatibility with Galilean relativity), which might be of interest to you if you get into it: https://profoundphysics.com/are-maxwell-equations-relativistic/

So if FEMM doesn't indicate an electric field, we won't get one either by going through the 4-vector A.

Then what is the point of the 4-vector A compared to Maxwell? I'm going to advocate for it to encourage people like you to start and continue.

  • When with Maxwell one writes ∇xE=-∂B/∂t while B=0 at the position under consideration, for example in a conductor around a coil but outside, one is playing with a non-local equation. Even if the final result seems to be correct, it is conceptually problematic since E is local, but B is not. With A and SR, it is much simpler: the local knowledge of A, defines all the electrical properties at the point considered. One always remains local, and A is obtained straightforwardly from the distant charges and the distant current elements.
    I even wonder if an electromagnetism simulation software using A and SR would not be much faster to calculate than the ones we currently have using Maxwell, like CST studio that I use.
  • Another advantage with A is the homogeneity: 4 coordinates but only one potential, while Maxwell's equations are heterogeneous, going so far as to make E and B two fields as if they were of different nature, while the magnetic field is really only a way to see the coulombic field of moving charges.
  • Another advantage is that if we know A seen from a certain point of view, a simple matrix calculation allows us to obtain any other point of view, such as the A' felt by a moving charge in A, as we just saw.
  • Another possible advantage is that, if SR has been developed to remain compatible with Maxwell, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case in new situations, especially those where GR would be necessary.
  • A final advantage is the question of the gauge, which I'm not sure can be arbitrarily chosen and not have a real physical effect, giving us a new means of action.


So I think to generate new ideas and see them more clearly, going through A and SR is the best way.


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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
@F6,

I am not using FEMM to give me an E field, that is done outside FEMM in my spreadsheet.  I am using FEMM to give me a static simulation of a static A field in the x, y plane.  I can then draw a line across that plane within the FEMM program and get it to output to my spreadsheet the coordinates of the A field (normal and transverse) relative to that line.  It is a bit of a fiddle because FEMM itself doesn't quite do this: in FEMM the A field is in the z direction (into or out of the screen, it is a 2D program) so I have to pretend that the current density A/m2that I put in the z direction is flux density Weber/m2, then the H field A/m in the x, y plane given out by FEMM is my wanted A field Weber/m.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1807
@F6,

I am not using FEMM to give me an E field, that is done outside FEMM in my spreadsheet.  I am using FEMM to give me a static simulation of a static A field in the x, y plane.  I can then draw a line across that plane within the FEMM program and get it to output to my spreadsheet the coordinates of the A field (normal and transverse) relative to that line.  It is a bit of a fiddle because FEMM itself doesn't quite do this: in FEMM the A field is in the z direction (into or out of the screen, it is a 2D program) so I have to pretend that the current density A/m2that I put in the z direction is flux density Weber/m2, then the H field A/m in the x, y plane given out by FEMM is my wanted A field Weber/m.

Smudge

Thanks for the clarification. It changes a lot of things, because if FEMM doesn't give E but only A, then except for additional calculation of E from A by SR, we miss the scalar potential seen by the charges moving through A and which changes E. Moreover in 2D only it complicates things as you said.

As far as CST Studio is concerned, it calculates E well, but in simulation of a quasi-stationary regime, it takes hours of calculation for simple configurations, and it becomes tedious. There is also the software "COMSOL multiphysics" but I don't think it works faster.
These softwares are not free and at prices acceptable only to professionals. For people like us, there are alternatives to get them :), but there is still a big intellectual investment to make to use them, not easy and time consuming, I gave up COMSOL because of that.


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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
@F6,

I have been thinking about how the A field propagates from its source (a current element) through space at velocity c and come to realize that EM radiation, usually depicted as E and H vectors orthogonal to each other and to the propagation direction, can be depicted by just one A vector also orthogonol to the propagation.  Then if A varies in magnitude with time, hence also with space, both E and H can be deduced from that simple picture with E antiparallel to A, and B at right angles to A by the curl function.  B and E are in time synchronism, then when you use H=B/μ0 the ratio E/H becomes Z0.  Now when trying to answer "what is a photon?" the particle does not have to account for the two E and H vectors, it only has to account for one vector, the A vector.  And we know that particles exist with zero rest mass, hence travel at c, and can carry a vector in its spin.  I need to revise my previous perception of space being full of such particles at huge density (like 1040 per m3) and matter particles interacting (by collision) with these creating the Heisenberg uncertainty inherent in the movement and position of the matter particle.  I had tried to use spin to explain E and H, but now I can modify this to explain just A.  Photons are simply a pattern imprinted on the otherwise random orientation of the spins and you need a number of of space particles arriving at a point in space with the correct pattern to depict a photon.  Hence the photon has both wavelike and particle characteristics.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1807
@Smudge,

I completely agree with what you say, A is enough to know everything about the fields. Even the electromagnetic wave equation in vacuum can be written with A, and very easily: ∇²A = 1/c² . ∂²A/∂t²
(When there are current sources it is ∇²A = 1/c² . ∂²A/∂t² - µJ where J is the current density).

And I also agree that it can simplify the view of alternative theories. I actually saw one this morning (https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10240), which revolves around a holistic view of QFT, this may perhaps come close to your ideas:

"[The] underlying quantum field in its ground state is the same throughout the universe, reflecting this reality the state vector representing its vacuum fluctuations in any spacetime element should be the same all over the universe []
a wave packet representing a quantum particle is a holistic ensemble of disturbances of physically real quantum fields, only the totality of which represents a particle like an electron or a photon
."

It's actually more complicated, and I didn't understand it all, the author also mentions wormholes (Einstein-Rosen ER bridge), but the fact that a particle would be a disturbance of the medium is linked to an idea of ether, and this ether is the same everywhere including its fluctuations, which would explain quantum entanglement.
I'm quite in tune with this way of seeing things, which would mean that the particles would all come from the same fabric, only the deformation of the medium that gives them birth would make the difference. You can't really distinguish the particles from the medium, which would explain the enormous density 1040 per m3 you were talking about. Just a thought...


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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1739
Here is an unfinished paper I started to write last November.  It may be of interest to those who who have FEMM and wish to use it to create A field patterns on screen that can be analyzed off screen in a spreadsheet.  I am currently writing Lua code so that the analysis can be done by Lua.

(@F6.  Note that when obtaining the known transverse E=v X B force for charge movement around a circular loop in a B field there are two components one of which comes from change in A magnitude.  If that were nulled by an induced scalar potential gradient from relativity theory the force would not be constant around that loop)

Smudge
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2023-02-01, 05:38:04