Curled Ballisitic Thermionics

[BEP]

@All

My odd view on magnetic flux and fields is based upon years of trying to produce a true rotating flux around the axis of that field. I've never succeeded and I doubt anyone will.

No matter how fast you spin a magnet about its axis the flux does not turn.

You will see force/counter force between magnets but it is like this:

1. when repelling, it is like air filled inner tubes acting upon each other (the inner tubes represent the reshaped flux produced by the magnet, NOT the magnet.
2. when attracting, it is like bubbles joining in water. Allow the water to settle and all bubbles will join to make one big one. Just like a pile of magnets aligning and attaching to form a glob of magnets.

I say magnets do not produce the flux no more than a lens produces light for one main reason.
Extend the field lines of any magnetic object beyond the usual display. They always join with the nearest magnetic field lines of the nearest magnetic object (provide it is close enough) and continue until the lines run magnetic North and South.

@retroworm

A slight bit of energy is radiated when a moving electron is diverted by a magnetic field? This is news to me. I must do some reading on this. If this is true then the rule of a magnetic field never imparting or detracting energy in a moving electron is wrong and other things are possible.

@Phil

I assume your reference to $1000 is a reward for proving your idea wrong. If correct I will not waste my time trying to win it because I don't think your main idea is wrong.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi BEP, Retro and All,

Yes the prize is to prove me an idiot.

If you prove me right there is about $5million dollars in prizes around you could claim.

So saying there is a financial bias to proving me right there is 99.99% of physicist that are ready to hang me for even saying what I have said.

I saw Steorn forum last night and I am being called nasty names by some coward called Joshs.

I must say it makes for interesting reading and apart from this nasty Joshs guy the remainder seem like decent thoughtful physics thinkers. Or perhaps I am just saying that becasue they are saying my theory is right.

But this Joshs guy is so dumb he calls me names then tries to prove me wrong but his argument starts out by admitting me right. He says the tangential torque will be balanced out by eddy currents. Now eddy currents do not happen until there is rotation so he argues that it wont turn because the turning force will be exactly cancelled by an eddy current reaction to motion. Chicken or egg someone?

Why people believe that there is a conspiracy of nature to find a byproduct force that magically cancels a different force I cannot begin to understand. It seems that these parrots feel superior because they are betting safe 99.999% of the time.

What takes guts is the people on this forum and others who stick out their chin to cop criticism for thinking, calling people names should not be part of educated debate, or in fact any conversation.

Phil H

PS just arrived back from Brisbane

[Philip Hardcastle]

Clarification to last

should read

Eddy currents, if they were to happen, would only come into play when the electrode is in motion,

or something like that.

[BEP]

Chicken or egg.... acceleration or velocity. Are so many folks still part of the 'Flat Earth Society'?

I seriously doubt eddy currents will be the problem most envision. Why? Because you need to cross the precious 'field lines' to make Eddie wake up. In a steady state Lorentz will be the master of this device, not Eddie. Even if it is a problem what will this produce? Heat.

As far as going for the 5 mil. I don't have 'Dr.' prepending my name. The last time I recruited a 'Dr.' to assist he declined because he wanted to keep the title.
.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi BEP,

That is the issue, I have professors who do not want yet to be publicly named. There is no free and open debate when experts have to fear persecution.

Curled Ballistics is not spoilt by eddy or any of his pals. The fact is theoretically every thermionic emission point could be made as an island of just a few atoms, so that there is no dimension for an eddy to swing.

Unfortunately there have been ideas that were silly and some that were so complex others could not see that they were pseudo science. The beauty of CBT is that it is so simple, there is nothing hiding waiting to bite.

The view of the conservatives is to say it has not been done (ignoring people like Professor Fu) and thus never will be. When someone puts forward a theory the people that see the sense in it are fearful of losing their tenure at a University, so they say nothing, then the second wave of educated but not professional physicists put forward their bit only to have someone who is just learning parrot fashion the prejudices of science, come forward and spit poison and ridicule on the thinkers.

Eventually almost all are too fearful of saying something wrong that they just become watchers, and the idea dies, often swamped by the third wave of zealots with no real physics knowledge who don´t care about criticism because they think everyone else is an alien or something.

So then the prejudical nasty ones say see, told you so and retreat to their towers of arrogance awaiting the next Don Quixote to come forward trying to do good and having the honesty and integrity, but naivety, to try. Down come the parrots and in rages of anger try to peck hi eyes out.

I admit from the outset I could be wrong. I cannot see where. So many people I have asked but none see why. So many Professors I have corresponded with but none see a mistake. So I feel that it is worth posting, then I get people attacking me - but not telling me there is a defect.

So I give it to the World for all enthusiasts to develop. However I cannot make the World believe in it.

I wrote to Stephen Hawking but no reply as yet. Perhaps because even Hawking knows that if he were to say yes to a 2nd Law violating device he would be attacked. Amazing for a Law that has never been proved.

For interest the Laws of thermodynamics have been changed from time to time, for instance when nuclear reactions were harnessed and of course with e=mc2 for the first says energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Philosophically the laws of thermodynamics are agreed to be violated by the big bang, and if there was ever a macro event that would be one. Then there is the argument about entropy but if the universe were to collapse back init to a singularity we can only assume that must be entropy in reverse.

But hey.... without question the laws of thermodynamics work perfectly for steam engines.......oh that is right, that that was what they were written about!

Anyhow folks, I have given the rights for people like you (the thinkers and doers, and even the dreamers) to use my idea.

It has been very nice talking to you guys, thanks to many for encouragement, and may you all live long and prosper.

If anyone wishes to continue this work and needs an ear you can contact me pjhardcastle@gmail.com

and if anyone claims my prize I will return to eat humble pie and to pay the piper.

Philip Hardcastle