Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[rakarskiy]

Because you didn't read the table carefully:

The table introduces the concept of charge, both electric vortex [q_e] and magnetic vortex [q_m]

see table: https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg570053/#msg570053


Do not forget that the equation: [I = U / R] for a chain section, for a complete circuit with a source of a vortex electric field, the equation will take the form: [I = (E - U) / (R + r)]

The magnetic vortex field of a conductor is:  B = u*u0*(I/2piR)   

[rakarskiy]

https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg570059/#msg570059

On the uniform input of power to the Holcomb generator, regardless of the load consumption.
It is this component that confirms that its device is a transgenerator. The excitation input will always be the same. He does not disclose the principle of his output circuits, since a voltage regulator must be installed at the output, otherwise, with a decrease in load (i.e. an increase in total resistance), the voltage at the terminals will increase. It is very, very difficult to regulate the transgenerator through the input current. So I am one hundred percent sure that the output block in the Holcomb generator is as complex as the organization of the excitation.

If I had not been involved in the design of the transgenerator, I would also have doubts.

[pmgr]

Why? Only because official physics decided so.
A volt is a unit of measurement of an electric field, which is related to the Coulomb force of electricity and the "movement" of the electric field at the moment of its vortex state (EMF). Volts is a measure of an electric field, or rather to practice the potential difference of an electric potential for a circuit?
Amps are the "electrical" measurement of a vortex magnetic field. This unit of measurement is directly related to the magnetic field rotating around the conductor.
That's why I put it in its place. Everything falls into place.
If you don't agree, justify! If you are from Russia, then your diagnosis is clear (there is a moment in your text that is inherent in the arrogance of Russians)


The connection between the magnetic field and the electric field is in Ohm's law, where, in fact, the effect of balancing the difference in electric potentials through the formation of a vortex magnetic flux is calculated, provided that the vortex magnetic flux is capable of conduction. The electric field in a conductor is always a surface component of the field. To balance the electrical potentials, a medium is needed and this is not the material of the conductor, but a vortex magnetic field that it can form in this material. I(A) = U(V) / R(ohm)

Vortex magnetic field and electric field, plasma structured formations of the visible and invisible spectrum.

Rakker, quite insulting your ethnic background comments. FYI I am in the US and not Russian. Please let's leave the politics out of this.


Anyway, you can pick your units in your table as you wish, but at least your equations in your table need to be consistent in terms of units that YOU pick and they are currently not. You can't have one row of your table assume certain units, yet another row is not consistent with that. Overall, all units need to be consistent (however YOU or CURRENT SCIENCE defines them)


Why don't you write out exactly for each different quantity below that you use what the units are"


E, H
D, B
eps0, mu0
current, voltage
Weber, Coulomb
q_E, q_M
phi_E, phi_M


Maybe you are redefining some units?


This is what current physics says:



E [V/m], H [A/m]
D [C/m2=As/m2], B [Wb/m2=Vs/m2]
eps0 [As/(Vm)] , mu0 [Vs/(Am)]
current [A], voltage [V]
Weber [Vs], Coulomb [As]
q_E [C=As], q_M [Wb=Vs]
phi_E [Vm], phi_M [Am]


So please make a post where you bold out what you changed compared to standard physics.


Then apply the formulas in your table and make sure YOUR units match.


You will see they don't as I will show below.


With the current units you have listed, the "Current" row doesn't match. You are stating there that [V]=[C/s] and [A]=[Wb/s], or in other words you have redefined [C]=[Vs] and [Wb]=[As]. Ordinary science says [C]=[As] and [Wb]=[Vs].



Anyway, let's use your new units and see where it goes wrong:


Applying your units to the "charge" row, you would get [C]=[eps_0]*[V/m]*[m2] --> [eps0]=[C/(Vm)]=[s/m] where I have used your new definition of [C]=[Vs]


Similarly you can look at the magnetic part of the "charge" row, you would get [Wb]=[mu0]*[A/m]*[m2] --> [mu0]=[Wb/(Am)]=[s/m].


So both eps0 and mu0 now have the same units [s/m]. We also know that sqrt(eps0*mu0)=1/(velocity of light), so this still holds. Everything still ok so far.


Now let's look at whether the definition of newton [N] still holds in your table.


Per your first rows (electrical) of the table [N/C]=[V/m], or [N]=[(VC)/m)] and with your definition of [C] = [Vs] this now equals [N]=[(V2 s)/m] 



Per your first rows (magnetic) of the table [N/Wb]=[A/m], or [N]=[(A Wb)/m)] and with your definition of [Wb] = [As] this now equals [N]=[(A2 s)/m]


Clearly these two definitions of [N] are not the same and so your table is not correct.


And ordinary science says [N]=[(kg m)/s2]...


Anyway, I hope this shows you that your overall table is not correct as you have written it down. Maybe you had some other unit definitions in mind, but if so, please list them and check your table as I did above to make sure everything is consistent.

[rakarskiy]

katsaps also live in the USA, but I agree we will not specify a dude without a name, who distorts other people's names.
Newton's first law is secondary in its ontogeny to Coulomb's law. Just look at the formulas.
In general, all gravity is the attraction of charged bodies.
The second physics considers Amperes to be the movement of electrically charged particles, which in fact is a gross mistake.
only a vortex electric field moves around the conductor. This is the parameter of electric charge change as a result of permeability. The current strength is a parameter of "conditional" resistance to a change in the electrical parameter, it has a vortex magnetic structure.
The vortex magnetic field and the vortex electric field are like twin brothers, but they have differences. The electric field along the conductor is a conical spiral from a higher potential to a lower one. A vortex magnetic field will always have equal potentials at the ends. This is a property of magnetic flux. The current strength is also the same in all parts of the circuit.

[Jimboot]

Rakarsky no name calling, no ethnic slurs. Post edited.thank you.