This thread is about advanced and delayed magnetic field's-no lenz delay PLEASE
Below is a video of a generator that uses two ferrite C core's to form the complete ferrite core assembly. As you will see in the video,the secondary coil recieves most(about99%)of it's magnetic flux from the primary coil(once the primary is loaded).How ever,there seems to be a bit of a mystery here,as the current in the secondary is leading in phase when the load is reduced. This brings the question-->how can it be recieving the magnetic field from the primary before the primary starts to produce current?.
It should also be noted that the secondary(regardless of load) in no way reflects a CEMF to the rotor. So enjoy the video,and post your thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFwIF4B7BP4
Tinman:
Very nice. This will be an interesting topic I am sure. You are off to a good start.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 27, 2014, 05:06:25 AM
Tinman:
Very nice. This will be an interesting topic I am sure. You are off to a good start.
Bill
Cheers Bill.
The next step is to make it solid state,and use an electromagnet insted of the rotor. In saying that,dose anyone have a simple DC to AC converter that is triggered by an SG-so as to be able to raise and lower frequency. Im not looking for any space shuttle schematic's,but more a very simple and robust one. I was thinking along the lines of a push/pull circuit,unless some one has even a simpler one?.
Cheers
Brad.
Interesting.
HI Brad
I see you answered MarkE's question about having the dots mixed up in the video, so that _probably_ takes care of that issue. Could you take a look at my sketch below, and tell me if it accurately represents your circuit and the measurement points?
As far as the DC-to-AC circuit you are asking about, there are several ways to do it, but the easiest way requires a bipolar DC power supply that will supply -V to 0 to +V. Most dual-output DC supplies can be configured to do this, if you can put the two outputs in series. You use the negative of one output for -V, the common (+ of one connected to - of the other) for 0 and the positive of the other output for +V. Also very easy to do with two batteries in series. The circuit that I used for the MescalMotor driver is an example that you could easily adapt for your purpose, subbing the SG for the photosensors or potentiometer in that circuit.
The 741 op-amp is easy to use, common as dirt, the standard supply voltage is -15_0_+15 for the op-amp but it will work on quite a bit less and your FG will have no trouble driving it. Give it a sine wave input and the output will be a sine wave, square wave input, output square wave, etc. The feedback connection cleans up the pulse shape on the output. You can have the power pushpull stage switching as much as the transistors can handle (careful about that feedback connection though). See below for the basic circuit. Op-amps are mega-cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hNEpCwRX_k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hNEpCwRX_k)
Cheers--
--TK
ETA: Oh, I see that I may have one of the rotormagnet polarities wrong. I think you are using alternating polarities rather than all one polarity up, right?
Hi Brad
A point I forgot to mention: Could you please test the current draw of the rotor motor with and without a slight mechanical load? That is, let it run freely as in your video, show the draw, then put a slight drag on the rotor with a fingertip or suchlike, and show the current draw in that condition?
Thanks--
--TK
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2014, 05:03:57 AM
This thread is about advanced and delayed magnetic field's-no lenz delay PLEASE
Below is a video of a generator that uses two ferrite C core's to form the complete ferrite core assembly. As you will see in the video,the secondary coil recieves most(about99%)of it's magnetic flux from the primary coil(once the primary is loaded).How ever,there seems to be a bit of a mystery here,as the current in the secondary is leading in phase when the load is reduced. This brings the question-->how can it be recieving the magnetic field from the primary before the primary starts to produce current?.
It should also be noted that the secondary(regardless of load) in no way reflects a CEMF to the rotor. So enjoy the video,and post your thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFwIF4B7BP4
Tinman here is what is going on: The windings have a very low coupling factor. So what the secondary sees is effectively a 10mA p-p current source applied across a roughly 70mH inductor that is in parallel with the potentiometer and 100 Ohm resistor. Driving at 102Hz: When the pot is turned down to 2 Ohms the p-p amplitude is 40mV as on your scope, and when the pot is cranked to 1K so that you have 90 Ohms, the p-p amplitude is 800mV as seen on your scope and the phase is advanced ~58 degrees relative to the 2 Ohm case as seen on your scope.
What makes the source look like a current source is a low coupling factor. (I used a coupling factor of 0.01 in my simulations. ) We know the coupling factor is low from other parts of your demonstrations: Changing the load on the "secondary" has very little effect on the primary and doesn't affect the current reading on your DMM at all.
So, I think this is a case of mystery solved.
Hi Brad,
When you have a few minutes, would you check the inductances of the coils with an L meter, please. I know you included the number of turns for the primary and the secondary coils, still knowing the inductances can further help to understand the operation.
First remove the resistors and check the L values and then attach the 2 Ohm to the secondary and see the how the primary coil may change, this is also an info for the coupling between the two coils.
One more question: did you use some glue to fix the two C cores to each other? If yes, can you tell the gap between the cores, I assume it is a fraction of a millimeter? I can see the rubber band over the cores lengthwise, so maybe there is no glue layer between the touching surfaces.
Thanks,
Gyula
There is bound to be a little gap in there, or at least not full contact across the core diameter, which is why I drew my diagram the way I did.
It would be interesting to sandwich a tiny ratiometric Hall effect sensor in there somewhere, wouldn't it?
Quote from: gyulasun on December 27, 2014, 02:23:34 PM
Hi Brad,
When you have a few minutes, would you check the inductances of the coils with an L meter, please. I know you included the number of turns for the primary and the secondary coils, still knowing the inductances can further help to understand the operation.
First remove the resistors and check the L values and then attach the 2 Ohm to the secondary and see the how the primary coil may change, this is also an info for the coupling between the two coils.
One more question: did you use some glue to fix the two C cores to each other? If yes, can you tell the gap between the cores, I assume it is a fraction of a millimeter? I can see the rubber band over the cores lengthwise, so maybe there is no glue layer between the touching surfaces.
Thanks,
Gyula
Hi Gyula
I would be more than happy to do so,but i dont have an L meter-must get one one day.
The two core's are just being held together with the rubber band-- not glue'd together.
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2014, 07:37:54 PM
Hi Gyula
I would be more than happy to do so,but i dont have an L meter-must get one one day.
The two core's are just being held together with the rubber band-- not glue'd together.
Tinman,
Consider making a scope shot with your external trigger coil positioned right next to the leading edge of your pole pieces so that the trigger pulse is generated from the same magnet passing thru the pole pieces and just prior in time to the pri/sec outputs.
Keep the trigger coil and pri/sec polarities all the same for convenience. You can temporarily use a channel to view the trigger to ensure this. Trigger on rising edge.
Thanks...
PW
Quote from: MarkE on December 27, 2014, 12:54:34 PM
Tinman here is what is going on: The windings have a very low coupling factor. So what the secondary sees is effectively a 10mA p-p current source applied across a roughly 70mH inductor that is in parallel with the potentiometer and 100 Ohm resistor. Driving at 102Hz: When the pot is turned down to 2 Ohms the p-p amplitude is 40mV as on your scope, and when the pot is cranked to 1K so that you have 90 Ohms, the p-p amplitude is 800mV as seen on your scope and the phase is advanced ~58 degrees relative to the 2 Ohm case as seen on your scope.
What makes the source look like a current source is a low coupling factor. (I used a coupling factor of 0.01 in my simulations. ) We know the coupling factor is low from other parts of your demonstrations: Changing the load on the "secondary" has very little effect on the primary and doesn't affect the current reading on your DMM at all.
So, I think this is a case of mystery solved.
Problem not solved Mark. I think you may be asumeing that more power is being disipated through the secondary coil and resistor when the resistance is turned down to 2 ohm's--> but this is not the case. Im sure you can get an estimation of power disipation from the P/P values over the 90 and 2 ohm resistive load's. The secondary is disipating more power when the resistive load is 90 ohm's,and this is when it is around 58* advanced to that of the primary.
Now,all fancy word's aside,the fact is that a changing magnetic field must be present through the inductor before a current is produced. So how is it that this changing magnetic field appears in the secondary before it dose in the primary?-we are starting from the zero volt line here.
I will also ask you if you know what position the PM's on the rotor will be at relative to the core when the voltage from the inductors is at it's peak?.
Quote from: picowatt on December 27, 2014, 08:02:30 PM
Tinman,
Consider making a scope shot with your external trigger coil positioned right next to the leading edge of your pole pieces so that the trigger pulse is generated from the same magnet passing thru the pole pieces and just prior in time to the pri/sec outputs.
Keep the trigger coil and pri/sec polarities all the same for convenience. You can temporarily use a channel to view the trigger to ensure this. Trigger on rising edge.
Thanks...
PW
Will do PW.
@TK
I will show a drag test on the rotor in my next video.I am also going to wind some small coils on the top horizontal parts of the two cores-one closest to the rotor will be use as the trigger source,but we can also look at the magnetic field that is traveling across the top of the two coils as well.
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2014, 08:20:45 PM
Problem not solved Mark. I think you may be asumeing that more power is being disipated through the secondary coil and resistor when the resistance is turned down to 2 ohm's--> but this is not the case. Im sure you can get an estimation of power disipation from the P/P values over the 90 and 2 ohm resistive load's. The secondary is disipating more power when the resistive load is 90 ohm's,and this is when it is around 58* advanced to that of the primary.
Now,all fancy word's aside,the fact is that a changing magnetic field must be present through the inductor before a current is produced. So how is it that this changing magnetic field appears in the secondary before it dose in the primary?-we are starting from the zero volt line here.
I will also ask you if you know what position the PM's on the rotor will be at relative to the core when the voltage from the inductors is at it's peak?.
As described I have reproduced the relative phase shift and amplitudes in the secondary for the 2 Ohm and 90 Ohm load conditions you demonstrated. We can divert into the power if you like, but: It is a new issue and as long as the waveforms in simulation and measurement match for the same component values, then the power matches as well. I am not sure why you are surprised that the power increases with higher resistance loads. All that means is that the series impedance is much higher than any of the loads you have tested with so far. You are on the low load side of the maximum power point. This is consistent with your other observations that all point to weak coupling.
This is a recurrent intuition problem with AC systems. It is the rate at which current changes in the primary that induces
voltage across the secondary. As you lighten up the load, it appears more resistive and therefore more in phase with the induced EMF. The induced EMF is following the derivative of the primary current. The derivative leads the current. If the transformer were tightly coupled, the secondary phase lead would shrink and the amplitude would come up.
The position of the PMs at the secondary peak changes with the load. Relative to the primary where the relationship is more or less fixed, it will be where the rate of change of flux is highest, so that should be close to when the ferrite gap is half way between two adjacent magnets.
Here is the drag test TK requested,and also the difference between the darg of steel laminated cores and ferrite cores.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtB_7RkEg
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2014, 08:20:45 PM
So how is it that this changing magnetic field appears in the secondary before it dose in the primary?
It is not a time machine. The primary is delayed in respect to the secondary, not the other way.
Your system has tiny air gaps which represent huge reluctances to the flux (R
4 and R
5).
It is not surprising that magnetic flux through R
8 is only several percent of the flux through R
3 when the proportionality of these reluctances is considered.
When the coils are loaded then R
3 and R
8 are converted into delayed MMF sources.
The coupling factor between these coils is very low.
The delays between coils wound over R
3 and R
8 are easily accountable, too, by the different resistances/loads and inductances of the coils.
The larger the coil's resistance, the shorter the net flux change delay*. This is because a larger resistance dissipates the induced current quicker in the same inductance. It is this induced current that is responsible for creating the opposing flux, so when this current dies down - so does the opposition.
Superconductors have no resistance so the induced current in them never dies down and the opposition to flux changes persists forever, thus the delay to the external flux change never ends and the net flux through a shorted zero-resistance coil never changes (is constant).
These delays are the basis of operation of the shaded pole motors which cause a flux change delay by a shorted coil in the stator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyEnwJ1Lazg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaded-pole_motor
In this experiment the phase difference is only several degrees, but the principle is the same.
Nothing new.
*More precisely it is about the L/R ratio.
Quote from: tinman on December 28, 2014, 12:53:20 AM
Here is the drag test TK requested,and also the difference between the darg of steel laminated cores and ferrite cores.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtB_7RkEg
Nice experiment.
Quote from: NoBull on December 28, 2014, 02:10:48 AM
It is not a time machine. The primary is delayed in respect to the secondary, not the other way.
Your system has tiny air gaps which represent huge reluctances to the flux (R4 and R5).
It is not surprising that magnetic flux through R8 is only several percent of the flux through R3 when the proportionality of these reluctances is considered.
When the coils are loaded then R3 and R8 are converted into delayed MMF sources.
The coupling factor between these coils is very low.
The delays between coils wound over R3 and R8 are easily accountable, too, by the different resistances/loads and inductances of the coils.
The larger the coil's resistance, the shorter the net flux change delay*. This is because a larger resistance dissipates the induced current quicker in the same inductance. It is this induced current that is responsible for creating the opposing flux, so when this current dies down - so does the opposition.
Superconductors have no resistance so the induced current in them never dies down and the opposition to flux changes persists forever, thus the delay to the external flux change never ends and the net flux through a shorted zero-resistance coil never changes (is constant).
These delays are the basis of operation of the shaded pole motors which cause a flux change delay by a shorted coil in the stator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyEnwJ1Lazg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaded-pole_motor
In this experiment the phase difference is only several degrees, but the principle is the same.
Nothing new.
*More precisely it is about the L/R ratio.
The primary is not delayed in respect to the secondary.The primary remains stable regardless of load on the secondary. The scope is being triggered via a seperate coil(as can be seen in the video),and the primary's coil phase dose not change in respect to that of the trigger coil. It is the secondary that is being advanced in phase,and that advance increases as the resistance of the load increases. You will also see the white line's on the magnet's,and they are there so as i can use an LED strobe to also check the phase shift on the primary coil.Once again,there is no shift of the white line's position when using the strobe on the primary coil,regardless of load on the secondary.The secondary's current builds befor that of the primary,and the advanced phase shif is dependent on the resistive load placed on the seconary coil.
Quote from: tinman on December 28, 2014, 05:55:04 AM
The primary is not delayed in respect to the secondary.The primary remains stable regardless of load on the secondary. The scope is being triggered via a seperate coil(as can be seen in the video),and the primary's coil phase dose not change in respect to that of the trigger coil. It is the secondary that is being advanced in phase,and that advance increases as the resistance of the load increases. You will also see the white line's on the magnet's,and they are there so as i can use an LED strobe to also check the phase shift on the primary coil.Once again,there is no shift of the white line's position when using the strobe on the primary coil,regardless of load on the secondary.The secondary's current builds befor that of the primary,and the advanced phase shif is dependent on the resistive load placed on the seconary coil.
Tinman aif you have access to a circuit simulation program ( there are a number of free ones on the net ), then you can see that for a parallel L/R circuit driven by a current source, IE high impedance that where R is large compared to jwL the voltage is almost in phase with the current. As the resistance gets gets small compared to jwL the voltage lags the current. The key here is as nobull has stated: The weak coupling between the two coils. That drives the impedance, the amplitude loss, and the observed phase lead when the second coil is lightly loaded.
Simulators..
I think the problem here goes all the way back to the
"Problem here"
semantics ... we have grown to use certain phrases [Lenz delay}" to explain certain paths for experiment ...and certain persons know this but it drives them Nuts [like most of what we do here]
so they spend a zillion hours and a squillion words "teaching"...when perhaps it should just go back to magic...
when it comes to what we are trying to do ..
beat Lentz
Beat friction
Beat Gravity
beat "known Laws of magnetism"
Beat Bouyancy
etc etc etc
welcome to Overunity.com ...this is what we do here
and we don't expect simulators to be of much use...
experiments "yes"
simulations ..not so much ...here perhaps we will add to the knowledge base of the simulator
maybe not today ...
?
is that arrogance??
No
Its Human nature..we were born this way.........
thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on December 28, 2014, 08:03:30 AM
Simulators..
I think the problem here goes all the way back to the
"Problem here"
semantics ... we have grown to use certain phrases [Lenz delay}" to explain certain paths for experiment ...and certain persons know this but it drives them Nuts [like most of what we do here]
so they spend a zillion hours and a squillion words "teaching"...when perhaps it should just go back to magic...
when it comes to what we are trying to do ..
beat Lentz
Beat friction
Beat Gravity
beat "known Laws of magnetism"
Beat Bouyancy
etc etc etc
What separates those who have a chance of advancing knowledge from those who have virtually no chance is the ones who have a chance are careful to learn what our current understanding is and how that understanding came about. From there they can see where there may be inconsistencies and / or issues that have not already been thoroughly evaluated.
Quote
welcome to Overunity.com ...this is what we do here
and we don't expect simulators to be of much use...
experiments "yes"
simulations ..not so much ...here perhaps we will add to the knowledge base of the simulator
maybe not today ...
?
is that arrogance??
No
Its Human nature..we were born this way.........
If a simulator that conforms to conventional understanding reproduces an observation then there is a very good chance that the conventional view accounts for the observation. It is a form of deliberate ignorance to reject capable tools because one hopes that the tools overlook something. Those hoping to find the exceptional should use whatever methods they can to separate out the merely routine from curiosities.
Quote
thx
Chet
Mark E
You have such a gift..A knack for stating the profoundly obvious...
it pays to pay attention...
but you already know that.
thx
Chet
Quote from: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 08:26:58 AM
What separates those who have a chance of advancing knowledge from those who have virtually no chance is the ones who have a chance are careful to learn what our current understanding is and how that understanding came about. From there they can see where there may be inconsistencies and / or issues that have not already been thoroughly evaluated.If a simulator that conforms to conventional understanding reproduces an observation then there is a very good chance that the conventional view accounts for the observation. It is a form of deliberate ignorance to reject capable tools because one hopes that the tools overlook something. Those hoping to find the exceptional should use whatever methods they can to separate out the merely routine from curiosities.
I have no time for simulator's-never have,never will--> it is a lazy mans tool. How do you expect to find the unknown using a device based around only known perameter's. A device that dosnt take into account simple things provided by nature itself. Nothing!and i mean nothing! is as exact as the DUT itself,being used or tested in the enviroment it is in. Here is a simple test for your simulator-please simulate the electrical impulses sent to the human brain while that person is eating ice cream. Thats right,only a machine(test equipment) that is attached to the actual device(the human eating the ice cream)can detect exactly what those impulses are,and the reactions going on in the machine.
Sorry,but no sim's for me-->DUT only.
Quote from: tinman on December 28, 2014, 08:47:40 AM
I have no time for simulator's-never have,never will--> it is a lazy mans tool. How do you expect to find the unknown using a device based around only known perameter's. A device that dosnt take into account simple things provided by nature itself. Nothing!and i mean nothing! is as exact as the DUT itself,being used or tested in the enviroment it is in. Here is a simple test for your simulator-please simulate the electrical impulses sent to the human brain while that person is eating ice cream. Thats right,only a machine(test equipment) that is attached to the actual device(the human eating the ice cream)can detect exactly what those impulses are,and the reactions going on in the machine.
Sorry,but no sim's for me-->DUT only.
Tinman simulators are incredibly useful tools for cutting down lab time. Mistakes are as easy to make in measurements as they are in simulations. One checks the other. When they agree we have high confidence in what we think we see. When they don't agree it is time to look more closely.
Quote from: ramset on December 28, 2014, 08:41:49 AM
Mark E
You have such a gift..A knack for stating the profoundly obvious...
it pays to pay attention...
but you already know that.
thx
Chet
And yet so often here we see people reject the "profoundly obvious".
So if you have someone showing a circuit (for example; could be a mechanical device, etc) that is claimed to be "OU" in some manner, and then that circuit is simulated by a circuit simulator like Falstad or LTSpice, say, and the simulator does _the same things_ that the actual circuit does, in terms of the claimant's measurements and phenomena, but the simulator also shows that it is not "OU", because the simulator can make more and more accurate measurements of various parameters ... who is right?
The statement that a simulator can't show OU behaviour unless some error is made somewhere, is what some of us call "Ibison's Law", after Michael Ibison at ETI. But that's obvious since the simulators are designed around well-understood conventional physics... and also it is not the issue. When there is _no actual device_ that performs differently from the properly constructed, underunity simulation, then you'd be well put to accept the results of the simulation.
Every time you get on a commercial airplane, you are trusting your very life to simulations. The aircraft are designed using them, the pilots are trained using them, the weather they fly through is forecast using them, and more. You don't dare perform actual stalls in a real commercial airliner or deliberately fail an engine on takeoff ... so how do airline pilots learn how to recover from stalls and unusual attitudes, how do they learn how to deal with engine fires, fuel starvation, structural or component failures? They do it in regularly scheduled, at least twice yearly, _simulator sessions_.
Hi TM, Thanks for putting out those vids, I think you should have started without any core in place first to see the rotor consumption by itself. Also it was interesting to see how the ferrite compared to the steel.
Just a question, can the ferrite be ground up and then glued back together to make a core of any shape we desire?
Looking forward to more of your tests' Great work !
artv
tinman,
you have stepped into a difficult field of investigation. It took me awhile to remember what I had experience in the past
with a tesla-transmitter when I saw your scheme
Your setup is similar to a magnetic loose coupled bandfilter. with two resonance-frequencies ( fig. C), see pic atteached.
The loose coupling is because of the small air-gap.
I was at a loss of explanation of some strange behavior of this system at that time until I showed my setup to a electronic hf-specialist who cleared this up.
Regards
Kator01
thanks for the vid, looking forward to see more about this.
Peace
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 28, 2014, 09:28:06 AM
Every time you get on a commercial airplane, you are trusting your very life to simulations. The aircraft are designed using them, the pilots are trained using them, the weather they fly through is forecast using them, and more. You don't dare perform actual stalls in a real commercial airliner or deliberately fail an engine on takeoff ... so how do airline pilots learn how to recover from stalls and unusual attitudes, how do they learn how to deal with engine fires, fuel starvation, structural or component failures? They do it in regularly scheduled, at least twice yearly, _simulator sessions_.
The here and now is fantastic TK,but the wright brothers had no such simulator,and yet there plane flew.
Simulator's are the wet dream of the real thing-there is just no comparison ;)
Im in no way infering anything OU here,in fact,this machine is very power hungry and inefficient. Im looking for effect,not efficiency.The one thing i have shown very clearly is the difference in drag between ferrite and steel core's. To me,that makes the whole exercise well worth it.But i am going to continue to look a little more at what is happening in regards to the magnetic field's,in fact,im quite enjoying working with this simple little machine.
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2014, 04:39:58 AM
The here and now is fantastic TK,but the wright brothers had no such simulator,and yet there plane flew.
Simulator's are the wet dream of the real thing-there is just no comparison ;)
Not exactly true. The Wright brothers had a lot more going for them than people nowadays seem to think.
In the first place they had the irrefutable examples of powered, heavier than air flight from nature: Birds.
In the second place, they flew many many tethered kites and free-flight gliders and gathered solid numerical data from them, long before they strapped an engine to their best glider design and flew it as an "airplane" in level flight. They actually made sustained soaring flights in freeflight gliders, perfecting their pitch and roll control systems long before they ever attempted powered flight.
In the third place, they had solid data from previous researchers like Otto Lilienthal, and made mathematical extrapolations from that data: What we today would call "modelling" and ... yes.... simulation.
In the fourth place, they developed the Wind Tunnel, for _simulations_ testing their designs of airfoils, control systems and propellers. They used solid data obtained from _simulations_ using scale models in the wind tunnel, to develop their practical fullscale designs.
The Wright brothers used a totally scientific approach, including modelling and mathematical simulations, tested in their wind tunnel to _simulate_ actual conditions and actual structures in full scale.
http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/tunnel.html (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/tunnel.html)
Quote
Im in no way infering anything OU here,in fact,this machine is very power hungry and inefficient. Im looking for effect,not efficiency.The one thing i have shown very clearly is the difference in drag between ferrite and steel core's. To me,that makes the whole exercise well worth it.But i am going to continue to look a little more at what is happening in regards to the magnetic field's,in fact,im quite enjoying working with this simple little machine.
I'm glad you are having fun! And I continue to maintain that the performance and details of your system can be simulated in a good simulator, and that the simulator will make predictions that you can then test in your real hardware. Simulations are only as good as their programmers... but there are some pretty good programmers out there. Do you think that, for example, your washing-machine motor or your lorry's starter motor or alternator were designed by trial and error, or by some engineers using simulators and formal (mathematical) models (which are simulators stripped of the fancy display hardware and software)?
From the NASA link above:
QuoteTo obtain data, one of the brothers would look through the view window on the top of the tunnel and record the angles on the balance output dial in the test section. The brothers built models of their wing designs using materials available in their bike shop. Strips of 20 guage steel (1/32 inch thick) were cut, hammered, filed and soldered to produce various shapes. They made between one and two hundred models and made quick preliminary tests in October, 1901, to develop their test techniques (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/balanceo.html) and to investigate a wide range of design variables. Some of the models were used in combination to study bi- and tri-wing designs. Following the preliminary experiments, they chose about 30 of their best designs for more detailed parametric studies (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/models.html). In these experiments, only one design variable was changed between models. You can duplicate the wind tunnel tests of the Wright brothers by using our interactive wind tunnel simulation (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/tunnlint.html).
At the end of their 1901 wind tunnel tests, the Wright brothers had the most detailed data (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/results.html) in the world for the design of aircraft wings. In 1902, they returned to Kitty Hawk with a new aircraft (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/air1902.html) based on their new data. This aircraft performed much better than the 1901 aircraft and lead directly to the successful 1903 flyer (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/air1903.html). Results of the wind tunnel tests were also used in the design of their propellers (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/propeller.html).
So I think you can see that simulation was indeed a very important part of the Wright brothers' development of the powered airplane.
tinman if you prefer doing everything as a hands-on experiment, that's fine. Simulations can give you insights into what you are seeing and may give you additional ideas for what experiments you want to conduct. I know a guy who for decades was dead set against simulations in his work. Now he realizes that he cannot compete without using them.
Quote from: MarkE on December 29, 2014, 06:37:29 AM
tinman if you prefer doing everything as a hands-on experiment, that's fine. Simulations can give you insights into what you are seeing and may give you additional ideas for what experiments you want to conduct. I know a guy who for decades was dead set against simulations in his work. Now he realizes that he cannot compete without using them.
It may be hard for me to put this in words that make sense to you,but i'll give it a try.
Here is my situation. my average working week is around 75-80 hour's,and most of that is away from home. About 14 month's ago,i had a lot of time to work on project's,but now my situation has change-financially far better off,free time next to zero. So i can have a lot of free time and enough money to get by but next to none to spend on projects,or i can have next to no free time,and heaps of money to burn-either way im screw'd. So not only do i see a simulator as some kind of cheat method to test devices,and a program that is based around only known outcome's,i also see them as a waste of my valuable time that could be spent building an actual device. Im a hands on man,and most of my computor time is spent right here on the forum's. Let's have a look at TK's last comment,and i'll tell you how i feel about that situation,and what may be happening.
Quote TK: So if you have someone showing a circuit (for example; could be a mechanical device, etc) that is claimed to be "OU" in some manner, and then that circuit is simulated by a circuit simulator like Falstad or LTSpice, say, and the simulator does _the same things_ that the actual circuit does, in terms of the claimant's measurements and phenomena, but the simulator also shows that it is not "OU", because the simulator can make more and more accurate measurements of various parameters ... who is right?
So what if the simulator is wrong?,what if it starts looking for thing's that arnt there just so as every thing adds up to known parameters. Simulators are based around known parameters,so what happens if the unknown happens to show up?-or will the unknow even show up on a device that is based around only the known?.Sounds to much like physics where they just chuck in some variables just so as things all line up. What about buoyancy,can it simulate something like the device in the discussion that Mark and myself are haveing on the !whats wrong with this! thread?.
I guess my biggest beef with simulators is spending time i dont have useing them,and then the fact that we are looking for the unknown,and the sim might just throw in some random junk so as it all makes sense with known parameters.
To easy to miss the big one useing a sim--that is my belief.
Oh, I agree with Ibison's Law, all right. You aren't going to find anything that is "outside physics" with a properly constructed simulation. But you may indeed find that some of the things that are observed from an apparatus that _seems_ to produce "outside physics" results are in fact... not.
For example, take Gerard Morin's demonstrations. Plug his starting values and components into a good electronics simulator and you'll get the same results that he gets in real life. He claims that they show "overunity" or "free energy"... but the simulator will tell you that they do not actually show any such thing, because the sim can make more, and more proper, measurements than he can. So the simulator can provide a good cross-check.
I've got a couple of "perpetually running" overcenter-springloaded things in Phun/Algodoo, that work without cheats. Since they don't actually work in reality, I think that this demonstrates that that particular simulation is wrong, probably because the precision of the math isn't that precise, rounding errors, etc. Simulators are not always right, but so far, to the extent that they don't model reality accurately, it's not a problem with reality, but a problem with the simulator.
So I think we are actually in agreement about that part of the question. If you want to demonstrate something that is "outside known physics" like an overunity machine, or a buoyancy drive, then only a working model will actually fit the bill. But a proper simulation will also be able to help you to avoid going down dead-ends, since you can simulate, test against model, make a change in the sim, re-test against model, until you find, or don't find, some deviation between what the sim shows and what the model does.
ETA: Demands on time are hard to deal with. One of the reasons that simulators are used a lot in "big science", and in the aircraft industry, is that they _save_ time, though. You can run a flight deck crew through dozens of simulated emergencies in a full-motion simulator in a few hours; you can simulate stresses and strains on a machined part in seconds, where it would take days to make an actual part and then test it to destruction. But sims take time to learn and program, and many people like yourself would just prefer to make the model itself. I'm like that too; I usually "build three times" and I prefer "sketching" in the actual metal, rather than drawing up detailed blueprints as the first stage of a build.
Maybe the time is comeing soon for a change or revamp of what we think we know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaELad94KZs
Let me give you a practical example: A few years ago Steven Jones reported that using expensive gear at BYU he was measuring 8X overunity on his JT variant. He experimented by changing a couple of resistor values using potentiometers. He observed on his oscilloscope waveforms that indicated his battery was being recharged by the circuit for part of each cycle. The expensive oscilloscope reported more energy going back into the battery than coming out of it. Eureka???
If one were to simulate his circuit without including the effects of his wiring and his oscilloscope probe set-up, one would not get over unity or anything that looks like Steven Jones reported results. Does that make the experiment or the simulation wrong? It means that one or both are wrong. When two methods to observe the same thing yield different results then there is work to be done to see which if either is correct. Back when this went on several people went about that by performing replications and simulations. At least one I can think of showed that it was the experiment that was fouled up. They showed how it was the scope probes and how they were being hooked up that were the problem.
Another similar example is Rosemary Ainslie. She too used an expensive oscilloscope to make measurements that did not agree with simulations of her reported circuit. She too had measurements that showed current moving back and forth between the test circuit and the batteries. Poynt99 was able to uncover the real circuit schematic by comparing simulations against Ms. Ainslie's reported results. He was able to reproduce her results when he refined his model to include the electrical effects of her wiring arrangements. Ms. Ainslie ultimately conducted experiments that included additional set-ups that Poynt99 suggested that were far less susceptible to corruption than her original set-ups that were left in place for comparison. All measurements ended up consistent with Poynt99's simulations. The new measurement set-ups showed the actual power draw from her batteries. The mystery was incontrovertibly reconciled.
My message is:
1) Simulation is a tool.
2) Simulation provides an independent view of what is seen in the lab.
3) Both simulation and lab observations can be wrong.
4) When simulation and the lab line up we can be confident in each.
5) When they don't agree we need to keep digging.
Quote from: Mister Caribbean Roots on December 29, 2014, 08:28:44 AM
Hi TM,
You're hands on approach is what make you understand, modify & develop your setups... ;)
Just keep at it just like they did in the 1800's mate... 8)...they didn't have any scope/simu or what not... :o
But nature provided everything needed and still does... ;D
The video you posted is funny in a sence of... :P
"violating one of the universe's most fundamental laws"...no no no...violating one of men's most fundamental laws...lol... ::)
Ferrite is better when it comes to less drag on the system and i do hope you can get your hands on more of those cores type so you can build a complete generator setup...
Have a good one... :D
Would you care to compare the pace of technology development today with modern tools versus say 1860?
free energy is super simple
you put DC power into a motor with a 100cm circumference pulley on it
you attach a belt, strap, rope or even a string in a pinch
and then attach at least one AC motor to a 1cm pulley on the same belt
you run the AC output through a full wave bridge rectifier to self power...
your DC input motor,,,,
then you have just created your first free energy electricity multiplier
satan will try to complain about torque, but it is no problem, just think about how easily an electric motor rotates,,,
you could have 10 - 100 AC motors attached, multiplying your input by 1000 - 10 000..
now dont you think this much output power could turn your input DC motor
Quote from: that-prophet on December 29, 2014, 10:54:55 AM
free energy is super simple
you put DC power into a motor with a 100cm circumference pulley on it
you attach a belt, strap, rope or even a string in a pinch
and then attach at least one AC motor to a 1cm pulley on the same belt
you run the AC output through a full wave bridge rectifier to self power...
your DC input motor,,,,
then you have just created your first free energy electricity multiplier
satan will try to complain about torque, but it is no problem, just think about how easily an electric motor rotates,,,
you could have 10 - 100 AC motors attached, multiplying your input by 1000 - 10 000..
now dont you think this much output power could turn your input DC motor
Send your idea to PESN. Ignore that in the ideal case the DC motor output power required is identical to the AC motor load, and that in the real world it will always be greater.
Quote from: MarkE on December 29, 2014, 08:41:39 AM
Would you care to compare the pace of technology development today with modern tools versus say 1860?
Yes,we have gone from learning to thinking we can set ruel's and absolutes(the laws of physics) in what would be nothing more than a drop of water in the ocean as far as mans time here go's.Man has put the brakes on in his own advancements,with a set of laws he really knows nothing about yet.
So this is it Mark,we have come as far as we can go?. No light speed travel because man says it's not possable-->what kind of crap is that. Tell us why light speed is not possable Mark.
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2014, 04:35:06 PM
Yes,we have gone from learning to thinking we can set ruel's and absolutes(the laws of physics) in what would be nothing more than a drop of water in the ocean as far as mans time here go's.Man has put the brakes on in his own advancements,with a set of laws he really knows nothing about yet.
So this is it Mark,we have come as far as we can go?. No light speed travel because man says it's not possable-->what kind of crap is that. Tell us why light speed is not possable Mark.
I don't know where you get such ideas. If anyone has evidence of new understanding that extends beyond our current understanding the vast majority of those in the sciences are thrilled to follow if not directly investigate. The idea that science rejects reliable data in favor of dogma is one that I see frequently from people who are not in the business.
The key development of Western science has been the development of the scientific method. The scientific method is incredibly adept at removing personal biases, agendas, or just plain mistakes from learning. What we call physical laws came to become that way and stay that way only because of the mountain of evidence that backs them, and a complete and total failure to falsify them. If at any point any of them are falsified then they will cease to be Laws. Either a modification or a complete replacement will occur. But for that to happen there must be commensurate evidence.
One more aspect of the core material drag test:
Shape. A flat body, when facing the pole, has a rather high "grip", a round shape is more slippry since the final path is decreasing in size down to a line.
I think the shape is probably more important than the material, although a high permeability results is more bearing friction, temporary unbalance, de- and re-accelleration and vibration and therefor losses.
Peace
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2014, 04:35:06 PM
Yes,we have gone from learning to thinking we can set ruel's and absolutes(the laws of physics) in what would be nothing more than a drop of water in the ocean as far as mans time here go's.Man has put the brakes on in his own advancements,with a set of laws he really knows nothing about yet.
So this is it Mark,we have come as far as we can go?. No light speed travel because man says it's not possable-->what kind of crap is that. Tell us why light speed is not possable Mark.
Tell us why light speed IS possable, Tinman.
Quote from: Qwert on December 30, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
Tell us why light speed IS possable, Tinman.
Anything that is not infinite has a limit,just as the speed of light dose. There idea or thinking that at light speed the ship would have infinite mass,and thus require an infinite fuel source is just rubbish. If the ship was to become infinite in mass,then so would the fuel source. You cant have one mass become infinite without the other doing so as well. But because the speed of light is not infinite,then neither is any mass that travels with it. Foe example-if some one was to switch on a torch for .1 of a second and switch it of again,and we could watch that beam of light travel through space,we would see a beam of light that was X mile's long-has a start and end-->it wouldnt be an infinite beam of light.
We observe in experiments that accelerating even very light particles to high fractions of C takes tremendous energy. We observe that it takes exponentially more energy the closer to C that we get in good agreement with the formula:
Kinetic Energy = mREST*c2*(1/((1-v2/c2)0.5) - 1)
The limit of that denominator as v => c is zero, meaning that the kinetic energy of the mass becomes undefined.
Do you know of any experimental evidence that there is a finite upper limit on the kinetic energy of a mass at light speed or beyond?
Quote from: tinman on December 30, 2014, 04:18:23 PM
Foe example-if some one was to switch on a torch for .1 of a second and switch it of again,and we could watch that beam of light travel through space,we would see a beam of light that was X mile's long-has a start and end-->it wouldnt be an infinite beam of light.
Ah, Tinman, not to bring Einstein into this but, what that short burst of light would look like would be dependent on your (the observer) position/velocity relative to that burst of light.
My 2 cents,
Bill
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 05:07:52 PM
We observe in experiments that accelerating even very light particles to high fractions of C takes tremendous energy. We observe that it takes exponentially more energy the closer to C that we get i
Note that all these experiments use EM forces to accelerate these particles.
Quote from: NoBull on December 30, 2014, 10:20:53 PM
Note that all these experiments use EM forces to accelerate these particles.
Rubber bands aren't available in Humungous size.
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 05:07:52 PM
Do you know of any experimental evidence that there is a finite upper limit on the kinetic energy of a mass at light speed or beyond?
Do you know of any experimental evidence that there is not a finite upper limit on the kinetic energy of a mass at light speed or beyond. Keeping in mind that unless some one has managed light speed,then no such evidence in either direction exist. All is theory until proven to be fact.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 30, 2014, 08:54:17 PM
Ah, Tinman, not to bring Einstein into this but, what that short burst of light would look like would be dependent on your (the observer) position/velocity relative to that burst of light.
My 2 cents,
Bill
Indeed it would. But as we are traveling through space at a very high speed,our point of observation would be continually changing.
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2014, 08:30:16 AM
Do you know of any experimental evidence that there is not a finite upper limit on the kinetic energy of a mass at light speed or beyond. Keeping in mind that unless some one has managed light speed,then no such evidence in either direction exist. All is theory until proven to be fact.
Yes, all the measurements of the energy required to accelerate particles to high fractions of c show exponentially greater energy as one approaches c. No drop off in that exponential climb has shown up.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 08:57:33 AM
Yes, all the measurements of the energy required to accelerate particles to high fractions of c show exponentially greater energy as one approaches c. No drop off in that exponential climb has shown up.
A simple electric motor draws far more power than it dose once it reaches running speed. Whats to say the same dosnt happen at light speed. Accelerating particals with an external energy source is far different to that where the energy source travels with the partical.
Quote: Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communication and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2014, 09:03:07 AM
A simple electric motor draws far more power than it dose once it reaches running speed. Whats to say the same dosnt happen at light speed. Accelerating particals with an external energy source is far different to that where the energy source travels with the partical.
There are no experiments I know of at relativistic velocities that do anything but conform to: Kinetic Energy = m
REST*c
2*(1/((1-v
2/c
2)
0.5) - 1).
Quote
Quote: Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communication and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2014, 08:35:26 AM
Indeed it would. But as we are traveling through space at a very high speed,our point of observation would be continually changing.
I agree.
Bill
You guys are way off topic.... and a lil ignorant :P Besides, I have no doubt about Tinman being able to travel FTL, considering the proven fact that he can harvest energy that is yet to be generated in the near future, as seen in vid 1 ... BTW. How's that going, any updates?
Quote from: dieter on January 01, 2015, 04:08:36 AM
You guys are way off topic.... and a lil ignorant :P Besides, I have no doubt about Tinman being able to travel FTL, considering the proven fact that he can harvest energy that is yet to be generated in the near future, as seen in vid 1 ... BTW. How's that going, any updates?
Hi Dieter.
I got a little side tracked with this buoyancy thing,and have to show some others a little experiment i did today. i will get back to that one ASAP,but my free time is in very short supply these day's. I need to rewind the coils with a finer wire,and make sure the coupling between the two cores is exact-no air gap's. I also need to wind a couple of extra coils on the core,so as i can see when the magnetic field is passing through each coil.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 08:57:33 AM
Yes, all the measurements of the energy required to accelerate particles to high fractions of c show exponentially greater energy as one approaches c. No drop off in that exponential climb has shown up.
...all the measurements of the
electromagnetic energy required to accelerate
charged particles to high fractions of c show exponentially smaller acceleration as one approaches c.
When the acceleration of charged particles decreases with speed there are two possible explanations according to Newton's 2
nd law:
a = F/m
1)
Mass increases with speed
2)
Force decreases with speed
Einstein picked #1
Quote from: NoBull on January 01, 2015, 09:07:18 AM
...all the measurements of the electromagnetic energy required to accelerate charged particles to high fractions of c show exponentially smaller acceleration as one approaches c.
When the acceleration of charged particles decreases with speed there are two possible explanations according to Newton's 2nd law:
a = F/m
1) Mass increases with speed
2) Force decreases with speed
Einstein picked #1
That is all true. However, from a standpoint of what obstacles make light speed or FTL travel challenging we don't have to resolve whether it is one, the other or both. In any case the energy required to accelerate climbs exponentially without any indication of an upper limit.
What about photons?
When I turn on my flashlight, I am accelerating a large number of photons from 0 to light speed almost instantaneously.
In college we learned that photons have "mass" as proved by some university experiments in the 70's. (I do not recall which one)
So, my question is, when these photons reach light speed, what happens/happened to their mass? If they indeed have mass, then how did they reach the speed of light in the first place? Was there a transformation of some kind?
I still believe in Einstein, I am sure it is my understanding that is at fault here but...after reading the previous posts, this thought just occurred to me.
So, how do this happen?
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 01, 2015, 01:54:38 PM
What about photons?
When I turn on my flashlight, I am accelerating a large number of photons from 0 to light speed almost instantaneously.
In college we learned that photons have "mass" as proved by some university experiments in the 70's. (I do not recall which one)
I think that this will help: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Quote
So, my question is, when these photons reach light speed, what happens/happened to their mass? If they indeed have mass, then how did they reach the speed of light in the first place? Was there a transformation of some kind?
I still believe in Einstein, I am sure it is my understanding that is at fault here but...after reading the previous posts, this thought just occurred to me.
So, how do this happen?
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 03:00:34 PM
I think that this will help: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html)
Thanks Mark. I see that they are making a very important distinction between "mass" and "rest mass", otherwise, their formulas are problematic.(according to them) Also, I see that is very difficult to measure the mass of a photon at rest, probably impossible.
Sorry for the off-topic posts here but this is very interesting.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 01, 2015, 03:11:22 PM
Thanks Mark. I see that they are making a very important distinction between "mass" and "rest mass", otherwise, their formulas are problematic.(according to them) Also, I see that is very difficult to measure the mass of a photon at rest, probably impossible.
Sorry for the off-topic posts here but this is very interesting.
Thanks,
Bill
Rust never sleeps and photons never rest.
Tinman, thanks for the on-topic answer.
BR
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 01, 2015, 01:54:38 PM
In college we learned that photons have "mass" as proved by some university experiments in the 70's. (I do not recall which one)
The circularly polarized ones transfer measurable momentum on impact.
Quote from: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 03:00:34 PM
I think that this will help: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
I dont think it helps at all.
Quote: In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons
Quote: Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?
Answer quote: Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon".
Quote: It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero.
Quote: Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10−17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10−27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.
So we have theories and ideas based around the impossable to messure.
Next comes a change to the certain upper limit,and we have a new limit.
Then there was more studdies,and along came a much better limit,but this much better limit has some doubt about the validity of the test.
It is great to see that science and physics is soooo precise
So you see Mark,all your knowledge is based around only theories,ideas and the impossable to messure.
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2015, 08:27:07 PM
I dont think it helps at all.
Quote: In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons
Quote: Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?
Answer quote: Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon".
Quote: It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero.
Quote: Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10−17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10−27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.
So we have theories and ideas based around the impossable to messure.
Next comes a change to the certain upper limit,and we have a new limit.
Then there was more studdies,and along came a much better limit,but this much better limit has some doubt about the validity of the test.
It is great to see that science and physics is soooo precise
Tinman what this tells us is that nothing is sacred. Zero is within the limit of any of those upper bounds. Is zero the right number? We don't know, so we keep performing experiments to try and get closer and closer to the truth. The mass equivalence of 7E-17 eV's is a very, very small number. The interesting part is that it is greater than zero. So, do photons have a non-zero mass and travel very close to, but not quite the speed of light? Inquiring minds are working on that.
Quote from: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 08:36:30 PM
Tinman what this tells us is that nothing is sacred. Zero is within the limit of any of those upper bounds. Is zero the right number? We don't know, so we keep performing experiments to try and get closer and closer to the truth. The mass equivalence of 7E-17 eV's is a very, very small number. The interesting part is that it is greater than zero. So, do photons have a non-zero mass and travel very close to, but not quite the speed of light? Inquiring minds are working on that.
One of the very reasons i dont use sim's. As you can see,to many theories and unknowns. So the question remains-do photons have mass. Well i look at the idea that NASA seems to think they could use large solar sails to propell space craft through space. Now,if the photon had no mass,then this idea wouldnt work,as it is based around that theory-oh ,another theory.
Now,if they do have mass,then as they reach light speed,that mass should increase to an infinite amount,and occupy all space. This would also mean that they require an infinite amount of energy to do so. But as we all know(without doubt) that when we turn on a simple LED torch,all of space is no occupied by photon's,nor is an infinite amount of energy drawn from our torch batteries.
I often wonder why so much money and time is spent on these well educated people that look for answers to these puzzleing questions,when a child with his $2.00 wall mart torch has already show what the answer is. It is no wonder it cost so much to live these days,when billions of dollars are spent looking for things that a child can show.
Now Mark,here is another question about photons.--> What have they got to do with light? What is there function in regards to light starting from point A and reaching point B?
This may sound trivial: Time and Space are connected. What connects them? Gravity! Everything that ever was or will be is somewhere in space, that includes the future. The future's connected to the present by gravity. Gravity travels faster then light, and straddles the event horizen. Magnet waves create perturbations in the gravity field that travel through the present to the future faster then light can travel. This may help explain how the mystery field arrived before it left!
Quote from Jerry Bayles:
"Einstein based his entire theory of relativity on the self-limiting velocity of light. Borrowing from Maxwell's work and the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein chose the foundation of his theory to define all of space-time as being constructed on the inviolate limit of the speed of light. That is a dangerous position to take and it is no wonder to me that Einstein was adamant about his dislike of spooky-action at a distance and the probability mathematics in the quantum physics realm.
There is more to this universe (and the actions within that universe) than what is in the nature of the limiting speed of light. What is the ultimate dimension? It is a point. (Zero tensor). No time, no space and the speed related to that point can be anything. Probably zero and also infinite. That is the action associated with the quantum realm. All dimensions are connected firstly to a beginning point and therefore no dimension higher than a point can be chosen to be the necessary dimension(s) for the gravitational field or any other field. All local matter is thus connected to all other local matter through what I call non-local energy space where energy is infinite and time and distance are zero".
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2015, 09:16:57 PM
One of the very reasons i dont use sim's. As you can see,to many theories and unknowns.
Unfortunately that amounts to an argument from ignorance. If one sets unreasonable expectations on the capabilities of either a simulation method or an experiment method, then one sets themselves up for results that don't jive with physical reality.
Quote
So the question remains-do photons have mass. Well i look at the idea that NASA seems to think they could use large solar sails to propell space craft through space. Now,if the photon had no mass,then this idea wouldnt work,as it is based around that theory-oh ,another theory.
No, photons are known to have momentum. That has been so since the discovery of the photoelectric effect. Whether they possess momentum with zero mass or very, very, very small mass remains unresolved, and remains an important question.
Quote
Now,if they do have mass,then as they reach light speed,that mass should increase to an infinite amount,and occupy all space. This would also mean that they require an infinite amount of energy to do so.
But if they don't quite travel at light speed, then under special relativity the energy required to accelerate them is still finite.
QuoteBut as we all know(without doubt) that when we turn on a simple LED torch,all of space is no occupied by photon's,nor is an infinite amount of energy drawn from our torch batteries.
Which is not new, and only conflicts with the special simultaneous requirements that you impose.
Quote
I often wonder why so much money and time is spent on these well educated people that look for answers to these puzzleing questions,when a child with his $2.00 wall mart torch has already show what the answer is. It is no wonder it cost so much to live these days,when billions of dollars are spent looking for things that a child can show.
Ironically, not that torch, not the solar panels on top of the Walmart, nor any of the products that Walmart sells with semiconductors in them would work without the science that you belittle.
Quote
Now Mark,here is another question about photons.--> What have they got to do with light? What is there function in regards to light starting from point A and reaching point B?
Photons are quantum particles with which is it possible to explain and account many electrodynamic phenomena such as the photoelectric effect / radiation pressure, etc.
The speed of light is not a constant,nor are eletromagnetic waves. Both light and magnetic waves travel slower in a preasurised enviroment,or an enviroment with a gravitational field than they do in a vacume. The very fact that they dont as yet know if photons have mass or not,leaves holes in physics,and these holes are justified by the term !theory and variables! To many unanswered questions in physics. One that really gets the mind thinking is-why is there much more matter than antimatter ,where is the equal in the opposite there?.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 11:11:47 PM
The speed of light is not a constant,nor are eletromagnetic waves. Both light and magnetic waves travel slower in a preasurised enviroment,or an enviroment with a gravitational field than they do in a vacume. The very fact that they dont as yet know if photons have mass or not,leaves holes in physics,and these holes are justified by the term !theory and variables! To many unanswered questions in physics. One that really gets the mind thinking is-why is there much more matter than antimatter ,where is the equal in the opposite there?.
You are back to arguing from ignorance.
Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 12:09:30 AM
You are back to arguing from ignorance.
It is not me that is being ignorant Mark. It is hard for me to take the word or listen to some one who dosnt know what the actual shape of a magnetic field is around a permanent magnet. Do you know that an electromagnets field shape is a little different to that of a PM-please see the thread magnetic mith's and misconception's.
I would appreciate you carrying out the small task i asked of you on that thread,as i have spent time and money showing you what you wanted to see-although to no avail apparently
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 04:54:25 AM
It is not me that is being ignorant Mark. It is hard for me to take the word or listen to some one who dosnt know what the actual shape of a magnetic field is around a permanent magnet. Do you know that an electromagnets field shape is a little different to that of a PM-please see the thread magnetic mith's and misconception's.
I would appreciate you carrying out the small task i asked of you on that thread,as i have spent time and money showing you what you wanted to see-although to no avail apparently
Tinman what you are doing is offering a classical logical fallacy that is known as an: "Argument from ignorance."
As to the magnetic field shape, iron filings do a nice job of mapping out the field. The figure eight idea is betrayed as false by experiments that have been conducted thousands and thousands of times.
Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 05:07:59 AM
Tinman what you are doing is offering a classical logical fallacy that is known as an: "Argument from ignorance."
As to the magnetic field shape, iron filings do a nice job of mapping out the field. The figure eight idea is betrayed as false by experiments that have been conducted thousands and thousands of times.
Iron filings are one of the worse things you can use to show a magnetic field,and the reason for that i have explained before. I would like to see an actual magnetic mapping video,insted of countless cartoon pictures showing incorrect field shape of a PM magnet. I will continue this debate on the magnetic miths and misconceptions thread-where it belong's.
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 05:25:48 AM
Iron filings are one of the worse things you can use to show a magnetic field,and the reason for that i have explained before. I would like to see an actual magnetic mapping video,insted of countless cartoon pictures showing incorrect field shape of a PM magnet. I will continue this debate on the magnetic miths and misconceptions thread-where it belong's.
Tinman iron filings have been used to correctly depict magnetic fields for over 150 years. If you are worried that iron filings distort the fields that they map, then you can disabuse yourself of that idea by simply using lower densities of particles, and/or only using them in selective locations, or by doing some math to see that short of immersing a magnet into a solid vat of extremely fine particles, the density can never be high enough to make any substantial difference.
Oh dear Tinman, you're a disappointment to me. You showed so much promise and it
seems to be evaporating into the aether.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 04, 2015, 06:10:08 AM
Oh dear Tinman, you're a disappointment to me. You showed so much promise and it
seems to be evaporating into the aether.
John.
Im not out to have your approval in any way shape or form. Are you that good that you can judge other people Minnie?- i think not. MarkE is the disappointment here,as he wont even take the time to draw three simple bloody pictures of what he thinks a magnetic field looks like around an electromagnet,but like others,demands that we show devices and tests to prove what we say is true.. I also gather that you are much the same-love shelling out the demands of proof,but have no input towards experiments conducted by your self. To sit there at your keyboard and think you have the right to judge me is nothing short of bullshit.Im yet to see any of your fancy work here minnie,or are you an armchair jocky like Mark,that cant extend the courtesy of a simple drawing to some one that has gone out of his way to help,show and deliver on many experiments. Maybe you would care to show me the magnetic field around an electromagnet?.
Yeah, I'm lucky to be able to use a keyboard. I owe a lot to magnetic research having
had a serious back injury needing precise surgery and this being made possible by analysis
of MRI imaging.
Do you think you could teach those designers a thing or two about magnets? What
about the people at CERN and similar establishments, do they know anything?
I've seen it so often, someone has an idea, page two and a scientific answer is given
as to what is wrong. Then, one hundred and fifty pages later the topic just dies.
I still do love your anti -gravity demo, it's got plenty perplexed!
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 04, 2015, 07:07:55 AM
Yeah, I'm lucky to be able to use a keyboard. I owe a lot to magnetic research having
had a serious back injury needing precise surgery and this being made possible by analysis
of MRI imaging.
Do you think you could teach those designers a thing or two about magnets? What
about the people at CERN and similar establishments, do they know anything?
I've seen it so often, someone has an idea, page two and a scientific answer is given
as to what is wrong. Then, one hundred and fifty pages later the topic just dies.
I still do love your anti -gravity demo, it's got plenty perplexed!
John.
John
Please dont present my experiments as things they are not. I would like to know where i presented an anti gravity device?. Maybe you would give me the pleasure of answering the question i just asked mark on the magnetic miths and misconceptions thread,about the pancake coil around the electromagnet.
I to broke my back,and smashed my knee to pieces in a motorcycle accident,and it took me months to learn to walk again after surgery. But sheer determination got me back on my feet,as there was no way i was going to live my life not being able to do the things i love. I now have my limits(which some times i exceed and pay the price for for the next 2 weeks),but i always find a way around things i can no longer do. I find it hard to believe you would judge me before i have a chance to show why i think magnetic fields are not correctly represented.
Brad
Thanks for your reply. What's wrong with this? Reply 140,I think, you show an anti-gravity
effect where the scales show a decreasing weight.
What I've learned is that there isn't a lot wrong with current thinking on electricity and
magnetism. It saddens me to see people fritter and waste their time and money building
contraptions that don't work on paper. QEG good example, the leap from 38% to 130% is
a bit of a big ask.
John .
A waste of time is trying to convince people who don't listen. Established science always goes the way of the money. Current understanding of electromagnetism is the well shaped tool of power and control trough dependence. For instance, as long as 40% of the budget of a nation comes from taxes on oil and gasoline, they certainly oppose any energy independence with all the power they got.
The case of Fleischmann and Pons is symtomatic. People who still believe that Cold Fusion is a hoax are eigther ignorant or delusional. The laws of physics are manmade and physics are not bound to manmade laws. When it's time to go over said laws, real scientists do not stick with the dogmata.
Therefor, the "we know the world is flat, end of discussion" attitude is more of a dogmatic religious kind.
Quote from: dieter on January 05, 2015, 07:27:50 AM
A waste of time is trying to convince people who don't listen. Established science always goes the way of the money. Current understanding of electromagnetism is the well shaped tool of power and control trough dependence. For instance, as long as 40% of the budget of a nation comes from taxes on oil and gasoline, they certainly oppose any energy independence with all the power they got.
The case of Fleischmann and Pons is symtomatic. People who still believe that Cold Fusion is a hoax are eigther ignorant or delusional. The laws of physics are manmade and physics are not bound to manmade laws. When it's time to go over said laws, real scientists do not stick with the dogmata.
Therefor, the "we know the world is flat, end of discussion" attitude is more of a dogmatic religious kind.
Well said
We need not look any further, as we already know all there is to know-its in the books
Hot air balloons are anti gravity devices-who'da thought.