Persistent-current destroys a theory I had about the 'propagation' ( amplifying while moving ) of electrical-current in a loop .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_current
It says it occurs in the following -
-In magnetized objects
-In superconductors
-In resistive conductors
Note - It occurs in magnetized-objects, and resistive conductors .
I had a theory that in a simple loop, if you could achieve a Persistent-/-perpetual current, that while it moves around the loop, the electromagnetic-field would continuously collect more and more aether-particles, so that the current would continuously increase until the loop is vaporized .
- So I'm referring to the non-electron part of electric-current, the electromagnetic-field part of electric-current, that when that moves around a loop it collects more and more aether-particles .
My original theory
- I used to think that there was a non-electron part of electric-current, something like or more non-solid and more fluid than plasma, I thought it was called electromotive-force, but now I think it just must be the electromagnetic-field .
I do remember reading that in recent years ( maybe last 2-3, or 5 years ), there was a large mobile-generator made, that was based on Persistent-current ( probably just a super-cooled conductor ), and there was a photo of it .
I wonder if my theory could still be correct, and that the reason these super-cooled loops don't vaporize, is that there is some sort of energy loss in super-cooled conductors, that energy radiates away from the loop .
Quote from: postingsite on December 04, 2018, 02:42:23 PM
I used to think that there was a non-electron part of electric-current, something like or more non-solid and more fluid than plasma, I thought it was called electromotive-force
Electromotive force is a force acting upon electrons, it is not a current.
While on the subject of Persistent-current .
I repeatedly read that if you use thicker wire, that there will be less resistance .
- However, I could not find if there is a limit to that effect, or formulas etc
( you'd think this would be common stuff for electricians etc )
- Does this reach a point where it become a superconductor, why not .
- Also, if you use thicker wire, does the surrounding electromagnetic-field shrink .
So what if you use a small 1.5-volt battery to send a single pulse around a 1-meter diameter thick continuous loop of wire, what will happen to that pulse / current, persistent-current ?
- Also, while the pulse travels around the loop, will the electromagnetic-field emitted by the loop be smaller or greater than that of a loop of 1-cm wire
Persistent currents are a consequence of Newton's first law applied to rotations:
"The principle of inertial rotation: in the absence of a net applied torque, the angular velocity remains unchanged."
If no force is applied, there is no reason for the rotating charges to stop.
On the other hand, persistent currents do not provide work. If they do, the currents would no longer be persistent because a reaction force would oppose them. I don't see a track for energy here.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 05, 2018, 05:42:39 AM
On the other hand, persistent currents do not provide work. If they do, the currents would no longer be persistent because a reaction force would oppose them.
Except one thing, electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. This remains persistent, even when it does provide work.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 05, 2018, 05:42:39 AM
I don't see a track for energy here.
About 2 maybe 3 years ago I read an article about a currently existing and built, mobile-generator based on persistent-current, in the photo it was large, and mounted on a large truck .
I am no longer able to find any information about it .
Maybe they didn't know about claimed self-powered-motor-generators, or maybe it was useful since it would have provided a totally smooth current like a battery,
I forgot to add to my last post 20 minutes ago -
I had a theory that in a simple loop, if you could achieve a Persistent-/-perpetual current, that while it moves around the loop, the electromagnetic-field part of the current would continuously collect more and more aether-particles, so that the current would continuously increase until the loop is vaporized .
- So I'm referring to the non-electron part of current, the electromagnetic-field part, that when that moves around the loop it collects more and more aether-particles .
My original theory
- I used to think that there was a non-electron part of electric-current, something like or more non-solid and more fluid version of plasma, I incorrectly thought it was called electromotive-force, but now I think it just must be the electromagnetic-field .
Quote from: ayeaye on December 05, 2018, 04:42:10 PM
Except one thing, electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. This remains persistent, even when it does provide work.
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 06, 2018, 03:42:52 AM
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.
Like what about two magnets repulsing each other? How can that happen without electrons in two atoms repulsing each other? How can two magnets attract each other without electrons attracting to the nucleus of another atom? But you don't think about it, as you call it magnetic field. And by naming it so, you omit the explanation. But everything is caused by charged particles, there is no mysterious magnetic field that just happens to be, and has no causes. Magnetic field is an emergent phenomenon caused by movement of charged particles, and forces between them.
You say don't provide work, everything that causes something else to move by repulsion or attraction of the field, does provide work.
Now you may show me some pages of some books, and say instead argue with all these people who wrote all these books. How convenient. But you argue with what i say.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 06, 2018, 04:04:32 AM
Like what about two magnets repulsing each other? How can that happen without electrons in two atoms repulsing each other? How can two magnets attract each other without electrons attracting to the nucleus of another atom? But you don't think about it, as you call it magnetic field. And by naming it so, you omit the explanation. But everything is caused by charged particles, there is no mysterious magnetic field that just happens to be, and has no causes. Magnetic field is an emergent phenomenon caused by movement of charged particles, and forces between them.
You say don't provide work, everything that causes something else to move by repulsion or attraction of the field, does provide work.
Now you may show me some pages of some books, and say instead argue with all these people who wrote all these books. How convenient. But you argue with what i say.
There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.
In that respect, there is a mysterious magnetic field that just happens to be, and has no causes.
The problem is that you only think it is there when you can observe it.
That is a mistake because it is always here, there, everywhere.
Let's say that it reacts to charged particles, then you would be close, but still not quite right.
The best part about all of this, is that it is very simple to prove all of this.
There is a set of simple tests that you can run, that will change your understanding forever.
They involve magnets, a coil and... charged particles or better said a moving electrostatic field.
Quote from: Turbo on December 06, 2018, 05:16:09 AM
There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.
No.
Still don't know - .
- If you use thicker wire, does the surrounding electromagnetic-field shrink .
Also
Quote from: Turbo on December 06, 2018, 05:16:09 AM
There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.
What if electromagnetic radiation is actually ripples in aether-soup, a 3d version of pond ripples, an effect that may even trick science tests that prove otherwise .
Quote from: postingsite on December 05, 2018, 06:19:35 PM
About 2 maybe 3 years ago I read an article about a currently existing and built, mobile-generator based on persistent-current, in the photo it was large, and mounted on a large truck .
I am no longer able to find any information about it .
Maybe they didn't know about claimed self-powered-motor-generators, or maybe it was useful since it would have provided a totally smooth current like a battery,
I think or assume it was only used to provide a brief powerful pulse for things that need that, I doubt it can continuously provide stable power .
Quote from: ayeaye on December 06, 2018, 04:04:32 AM
Like what about two magnets repulsing each other?
Two magnets repulsing (or attracting) each other exploit the magnetic potential energy of their relative start positions. In the final positions, the field around the magnets has changed, there is less energy in the field, the energy difference has been used.
You must use a mechanical energy to put them back to their start position and restore the field energy and the associated magnetic potential energy.
It's exactly the same with 2 capacitor plates attracting each other, they tend to reduce their starting potential energy.
It is exactly the same with the potential gravitational energy of a mass falling on earth from a certain altitude.
These are commonplace facts that never involve orbital electrons.
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 06, 2018, 05:22:12 AM
No.
But it is. The magnetic field is a vector defined at a position in space, as Turbo said in other words (in spacetime, exactly).
It's a definition, with a formalism, not an objective reality.
If you don't agree define another concept to qualify your reality, like "magnetic gizmo" and define clearly its properties otherwise it's only gibberish.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 06, 2018, 12:08:10 PM
But it is. The magnetic field is a vector defined at a position in space, as Turbo said in other words (in spacetime, exactly).
It's a definition, with a formalism, not an objective reality.
If you don't agree define another concept to qualify your reality
I explained here how even induction comes from the movement of charged particles and electrostatic forces between them https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/ (https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/)
No you are wrong, when an object falls to the ground, then the Earth's gravitational field provides work. That we need the same energy to lift that object to the same height, that's due to symmetry of the gravitational field, it's spherical. Which means it can do work, but cannot do continuous work. But magnetic field is not symmetric, as it has two poles, this asymmetry is again due to electrons orbiting the nucleus of the atom. And every asymmetric field can do continuous work.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 06, 2018, 02:12:59 PM
I explained here how even induction comes from the movement of charged particles and electrostatic forces between them https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/ (https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/)
...
You explained nothing, we see only childish pictures with giberrish.
What are "charged particles"?!
What are "electrostatic forces"?!
You are denying physics while using physics concepts!
Total non sense, not even internally consistent.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 07, 2018, 03:30:22 AM
You explained nothing, we see only childish pictures with giberrish.
What are "charged particles"?!
What are "electrostatic forces"?!
You are denying physics while using physics concepts!
Total non sense, not even internally consistent.
You said nothing, this was only a plain offense.
Childish pictures i show out of frustration, because i know that offense follows. And so that who offends because of these pictures, shows their ignorance. Do you know about punk? This is also a parody. But there are evidently very few things in the world that you even know.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 07, 2018, 03:44:22 AM
You said nothing, this was only a plain offense.
"Nothing" is what you kept from my explanations, don't confuse the two.
The explanations using physics were provided in reply #12.
The explanation of the internal logical flaw of your denial was in my reply #13.
If you don't understand them, ask. If science and logic are too complicated, religion or science fiction are alternatives.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 08, 2018, 06:42:17 AM
The explanations using physics were provided in reply #12.
The explanation of the internal logical flaw of your denial was in my reply #13.
In the post #12 you wrote your following musing "Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work." Thank you for your wisdom, i don't think anyone here buys it. As a matter of fact i don't think anyone buys it in the physics forum either.
I asked that in the freenode ##physics channel. Whether the electrons in the atoms of two magnets that attract to each other, do work. The answer i got was "For electrons that are bound to atoms as part of a substance, there can be a net action and hence work done". And no one there really disagreed with that answer. They were people working as scientists.
I told them my this experiment as well, of showing induction with a blower https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/ (https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/) All they said was "Hmmmm", they said nothing negative, that it is ridiculous or anything, they said nothing against. Because different from you they are people who can think.
Has anyone studied the Aharonov-bohm-Effect ? Beaden described this in the operating principle of MEG
https://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bearden-fact-sheet-meg-how-it-works.pdf
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Induction-Produces-Aharonov-bohm-Effect/0d16d431b5dcfaef37758df46de75640f0d1c683
Quote from: bringdownthezog on December 09, 2018, 03:40:38 AM
Has anyone studied the Aharonov-bohm-Effect ?
You are talking about the wave function of the electron, that is how the electron actually vibrates. It is possible that various quantum phenomena affect that, but i don't see how this is relevant to the interaction between the charged particles, that may be anyhow relevant to overunity. But of course i cannot know every possibility.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 08, 2018, 04:56:47 PM
...The answer i got was "For electrons that are bound to atoms as part of a substance, there can be a net action and hence work done". And no one there really disagreed with that answer. They were people working as scientists.
It's a wishfull thinking because there is no supporting facts.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 09, 2018, 05:50:58 AM
You are talking about the wave function of the electron, that is how the electron actually vibrates. It is possible that various quantum phenomena affect that, but i don't see how this is relevant to the interaction between the charged particles, that may be anyhow relevant to overunity.
I share your opinion. Even if this is not the dominant viewpoint, the Aharonov-Bohm effect is sometimes explained by some physicists in terms of classical physics instead of QM. It is related to vector potential. I think there's a possibility here. Nevertheless, it is not related to the absurdities spread by Bearden to appear intelligent, he extracts anything from physics without mastering the slightest thing.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 09, 2018, 06:55:29 AM
It's a wishfull thinking because there is no supporting facts.
Think what you want, i just said what these physicists told. And it was quite an opposite to what you said.
"It is related to vector potential"
Yes vector potential, the Schrõdinger equation describes the vector of the quantum system and its change in time, which i think is what they call vector potential. The component with zero magnetic field of it is thus about the wave function and vibration of the electron, like its phase. It is not something that one can directly measure as a voltage or current, or electric or magnetic field. It might affect what happens though in some subtle and unknown ways.
Bohm was all about non-locality. Like a photon going through two slits simultaneously, likely because it is a bigger structure. Here too, it's like the electrons in the atoms of the core in a way extend to the electrons in the electron beam, because vector potential seems to describe a particle. In spite that the charged particles supposed to interact with each other only by changing photons, which is the electromagnetic quantum.
The Schrödinger equation is related to the wave function, not to the vector potential. Wave function and vector potential are totally distinct concepts, even if the Aharonov-Bohm effect can be explained by classical physics which is not the actual consensus.
What a mix-up! ::)
Quote from: F6FLT on December 09, 2018, 10:07:18 AM
The Schrödinger equation is related to the wave function, not to the vector potential. Wave function and vector potential are totally distinct concepts
No, Schrödinger equation describes vector potential.
Quote from: bringdownthezog on December 09, 2018, 03:40:38 AM
Has anyone studied the Aharonov-bohm-Effect ? Beaden described this in the operating principle of MEG
https://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bearden-fact-sheet-meg-how-it-works.pdf
I don't see that this paper anyhow proves that this so called MEG should have any overunity. It starts from talking about Aharonov-Bohm effect, making it to sound like it were something extremely advanced. But then it goes on talking about something completely different, that doesn't seem to be related at all. And finally it looks like that all that supposed to do all these wonderful things, is some nanocrystalline core. What is it and why it supposed to do that, this paper doesn't explain.
Maybe i miss some other hundred papers about that, but this paper supposed to prove that MEG has overunity, and i don't see that it does. It doesn't even describe how that system works, that is what its key component, the nanocrystalline material, does.
I also don't see what this MEG has to do with Aharonov-Bohm effect. Sorry, there may be things that i don't know, but this paper doesn't explain it to me.
I mean, not only doesn't this paper prove that MEG has overunity, but it also doesn't provide any sensible reason why it might have overunity. Thus it is not anything worth to research, unless someone provides some better explanation perhaps.
F6FLT, reality is like a net bag your grandmother took to the market, even if you read No Stein books.
The drawing below shows electrons actually touching each other, but this can only be true for short distances i think, the same as the Aharonov-Bohm effect or two slit experiment. At longer distances they should use photons as quanta, why, because on the grid one cannot find another without sending something propagating through the grid. These are the only ways for particles to interact, they can only fumble in a way or another, the particles are blind, they cannot see. And we can also see only because of photons.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 09, 2018, 10:34:56 AM
No, Schrödinger equation describes vector potential.
False.
Schrödinger equation (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html)
Vector potential (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magvec.html)
Quote from: F6FLT on December 10, 2018, 07:11:13 AM
False.
Schrödinger equation (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html)
Vector potential (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magvec.html)
You are not correct when saying false.
In the Schrödinger equation for charged particles, the electromagnetic field is described by the vector potential and electric potential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation)
The classical fields can indeed be extracted from the wave function but there is no identity between the Schrödinger equation and the vector potential as shown by the links I provided in my previous post, see the very different definitions and formalism between the two.
Things are not at all as simplistic as you say they are, see here:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-classical-fields-particles-emerge.html
Quote from: F6FLT on December 11, 2018, 06:45:10 AM
The classical fields can indeed be extracted from the wave function but there is no identity between the Schrödinger equation and the vector potential as shown by the links I provided in my previous post, see the very different definitions and formalism between the two.
Things are not at all as simplistic as you say they are, see here:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-classical-fields-particles-emerge.html
As someone told,
don't but me, i didn't say that things are simplistic, we also though need to see things to understand.
Do you think that i am here to learn from you science or what? Indeed this place needs no more arrogance, as you have it all. For that reason it made no sense for me to be here at all. I can talk to people a lot smarter than you, with one click, and they will be happy to see me, very different from you. I though cannot be there as i am already in too many places all at once.
A thing i can say about you is though, all want to teach, no one wants to learn. And even then you need to learn one thing, be nice to people if you want to teach them. And if you even once may be, you may learn one more thing, which one old man told me, don't teach people, they learn, but they will never forgive you that you taught them.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 11, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
As someone told, don't but me, i didn't say that things are simplistic, we also though need to see things to understand.
Do you think that i am here to learn from you science or what? Indeed this place needs no more arrogance, as you have it all. For that reason it made no sense for me to be here at all. I can talk to people a lot smarter than you, with one click, and they will be happy to see me, very different from you. I though cannot be there as i am already in too many places all at once.
A thing i can say about you is though, all want to teach, no one wants to learn. And even then you need to learn one thing, be nice to people if you want to teach them. And if you even once may be, you may learn one more thing, which one old man told me, don't teach people, they learn, but they will never forgive you that you taught them.
That old man was a fool. The only people that don't want to be taught are those that think they already know everything. The rest of us are glad to have anyone that wants to teach us the things we don't know. And I am an old man also.