Latest: No back torque generator.

[gravityblock]

My best guess is because it is fundamental to existence - a stretch I know but where it begins and ends is a bit beyond me.

I can accept that it is everywhere and fundamental to existence.  What I have a hard time accepting is if the flux is all permeating, then how could it cause the electrons to flow along a conductor since it is permeating through the electron before, during, and after the change of flux over time?   How can the electron disturb this flux since the flux would permeate through it (there would be no torque or force if the flux permeated through the electron as the electron cut the line of flux). There is no evidence to support this idea and is not logical.

The flux is capable of permeating through empty space and not fundamental particles.  There is space in the atom, in the molecules, and in an object at the micro level.  It permeates through matter due to the space in the matter.  Electrons don't have empty space within it because it is a fundamental particle, so the flux can't permeate through the electron.....instead it will cause the electron to move. 

The electrons are moving around the nucleus of an atom due to this flux filling the empty space of the atom.  It is this fact and this fact alone that causes electrons to move and to keep the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atom.  The flux can't permeate through any of the fundamental particles.

[gravityblock]

Do you really accept the "Electron" as a fundamental particle?  Would a Positron then be a different Particle?  Or are they the same particle with different charges?  Either way, where/what is the charge?  For me, not everything is quite as "Cut and Dried" as the books like to make it out to be.

If the electron isn't a fundamental particle, then it sure does behave like one.  The positron would be the anti-matter of the electron.  The electron having forward time flow while the positron would have reverse time flow.  An aether unit is made up of forward and reverse time flow as you can see in the picture below.  It appears the picture has the time flow backwards, but I am sure it is for illustration purposes only.

If anyone wants to talk about this or other things I mentioned that is more than likely not correct, then feel free to send me a private message.  I feel we are getting off topic here and should be discussing broli's design.  I think I lost my mind for a minute.   

Thanks,

GB

[BWS]

I've been on these subjects of electric and magnetic fields for 20 years.  I have a significant patent on a device that (I believe) will reduce Lens Law losses.  I have prototypes that validate my research and claims.  The attachment is of the only documented violation of Newtonian physics directly relating to induction.  Note that you can never violate Newton with a coil, but if you induce voltage in wire segments you are home free.  I can explain this further if requested.
  The magnetic field is not an independent field.  It is a direct product of the electric field.  The electric field is the primary field of our physical world, all other fields (magnetic, gravitation, strong nuclear force) are products of the electric field.  The electric field is a transformation/warpage of the quantum field by the electron and the proton.
Induction neither adds energy to the electron nor takes it away.  It simply deviates the path of an electron in motion reactionlessly.  The force acting on the induced electron does not act on the source of the magnetic field.
  Imagine that 2 boats are traveling at speed parallel to each other on calm water.  The boat in the lead is a proton making a big wake in the water, the water is the quantum field.  The second boat (electron) can turn off it's engine and get pushed by the wake of the first boat.  Although the first boat is now propelling the second boat, there is no reactive force on the first boat, and this will not change the fuel consumption of the first boat no matter how many small boats or surfers ride it's wake.  This is a reactionless drive just like basic induction.  Another example is that of the cyclotron;  in a cyclotron particles are shot into a magnetic field where they circulate indefinitely.  The cyclotron demonstrates the basic experience of induction.  In it energy is never added or subtracted to the particle, yet it's path is continuously deviated.
-BWS
-BWS

[broli]

I've been on these subjects of electric and magnetic fields for 20 years.  I have a significant patent on a device that (I believe) will reduce Lens Law losses.  I have prototypes that validate my research and claims.  The attachment is of the only documented violation of Newtonian physics directly relating to induction.  Note that you can never violate Newton with a coil, but if you induce voltage in wire segments you are home free.  I can explain this further if requested.
  The magnetic field is not an independent field.  It is a direct product of the electric field.  The electric field is the primary field of our physical world, all other fields (magnetic, gravitation, strong nuclear force) are products of the electric field.  The electric field is a transformation/warpage of the quantum field by the electron and the proton.
Induction neither adds energy to the electron nor takes it away.  It simply deviates the path of an electron in motion reactionlessly.  The force acting on the induced electron does not act on the source of the magnetic field.
  Imagine that 2 boats are traveling at speed parallel to each other on calm water.  The boat in the lead is a proton making a big wake in the water, the water is the quantum field.  The second boat (electron) can turn off it's engine and get pushed by the wake of the first boat.  Although the first boat is now propelling the second boat, there is no reactive force on the first boat, and this will not change the fuel consumption of the first boat no matter how many small boats or surfers ride it's wake.  This is a reactionless drive just like basic induction.  Another example is that of the cyclotron;  in a cyclotron particles are shot into a magnetic field where they circulate indefinitely.  The cyclotron demonstrates the basic experience of induction.  In it energy is never added or subtracted to the particle, yet it's path is continuously deviated.
-BWS
-BWS

BWS, this discussion has been going on for more than a century. I already mentioned this a few times. This is the biot savart paradox. This is why I am promoting the old ampere force law where the paradox doesn't arise. The biot savart law only holds for a closed loop circuit while the ampere force law would give the same result as the BS law in that case BUT also gives the correct result for single current elements. Using the ampere law in the case you mention gives 0 newton. J naudin has a nice animation of this paradox but he doesn't correct it with the old ampere force law...

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/lorentz/index.htm

I had a nice article about this subject but I can't seem to find it anymore. But online you'll find lots of papers (most are not free) favouring the old ampere force law. Basiclly the old ampere force law agrees with newtons third law in its strong form (which is the only form there is) that says the forces are equal and oppesite on the same working line.

[broli]

I believe newton's third law can be violated though by using shielding. If you wrap some shielding around the wire the external field will "bend" around the wire and not affect it while the field of the wire will remain unaffected and act on the cause of the external field. This is action without reaction.