You may find this interesting, there is no such thing as magnetism ;) just like tesla said, Its all electric baby yea!
Quote:
"Maxwell?s formulation, however, eliminated consideration of the angular component of the force between current elements. It also removed the most fundamental of Amp?re?s assumptions?the unity of electricity and magnetism?by introducing the concept of a magnetic field. There is no magnetic field in any of the writings of Amp?re, nor of his successors in electrodynamics, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. Magnetism, for them, is considered an epiphenomenon of electricity; it is the force of electrodynamic attraction or repulsion acting between circuits of electricity, called magnetic molecules (and which came to be known later as electrons)."
@http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
or maybe this?
Quote:
"The discovery of the phenomena of electrical and magnetic induction had introduced a new element into the considerations of electrical law, not taken up in Amp?re's 1826 work. There thus existed, side by side, three seemingly valid descriptions of the electrical interaction: (1) the Coulomb-Poisson law, describing the interaction of two electrical masses at rest; (2) the Amp?re law, describing the interaction of elements of moving electricity, and: (3) a description of the laws of induction, elaborated by Emil Lenz and Franz Neumann. In his Fundamental Electrical Law, stated in 1846, Weber achieved the unification of these various phenomena under a single conception.
Instead of the mathematical entities, described as current elements by Amp?re, Weber hypothesized the existence within the conductor of positive and negative electrical particles. He assumed that the presence of an electrical tension caused these particles to move at equal velocities in opposite directions. If one regards an Amp?re current element as containing, at any given instant, a positive and a negative electrical particle, passing each other, then in the pairwise relationship of two current elements, there are four interactions to be considered. By the Coulomb law, these interactions, consisting of two repulsions and two attractions, cancel each other. However, the elementary experiments of Amp?re had shown that a motion is produced between the wires, implying the existence of a force not described by the Coulomb law. For example, two parallel conducting wires attract each other when the current in the two wires flows in the same direction, and repel each other when the opposite is the case. The situation is perfectly well explained under the Amp?re force law, when one takes into account the angular relationship of the respective current elements. However, Weber's unifying approach was to assume that the relative velocities of the electrical particles produced a modification in the Coulomb electrostatic force, to produce the resultant force between the wires. Considering all the configurations which Amp?re had examined, as well as those arising from the phenomena of induction, he was able to formulate a general statement of the Fundamental Electrical Law. This showed that the general law describing the force of interaction of two electrical particles, depends upon the relative velocities and the relative accelerations of the particles. The Coulomb electrostatic law thus becomes a special case of Weber's general law, when the particles are at relative rest."
@http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/weber.html
So really magnetism doesn't exist it is electric, a Permanent Magnet is nothing more than moving electric charges held in alignment in matter. The scientific community is covering up Maxwells screwup, and we all know you can't give a nobel prize to a screwup, that would be embarrasing. :D
As well Wilhelm Eduard Weber and homopolar generator are two words no physicist wants to hear.
I have seen the devil and looked into his eyes and his name was vanity.
For those interested, A. K. T. Assis has written dozens of papers mostly based on Weber's electrodynamics.
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
An attempt at this sort of thing was posted a few months ago.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2485.0.html
It gives a direct force-law between moving charges.
In the excellent book "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation", Jefimenko shows that Maxwell's equations aren't entirely accurate, and, more importantly, don't describe the actual causes of the electromagnetic forces.
http://www.amazon.com/Causality-Electromagnetic-Induction-Gravitation-Gravitational/dp/0917406230
http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/596cemi.htm
He also develops what have become known as Jefimenko's equations, which show how to correctly calculate these forces from the motions of electrons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations
In the book, he gives various equivalent formulations, including ones that don't make any use at all of a magnetic field.
Most important is that all of these formulations are causal -- nothing needs to measure fields instantaneously at a far-away points the way Maxwell's surface integrals do.
Other notable things in the book include a causal development and physical interpretation of the magnetic vector potential, and a fascinating explanation of how the conservation of momentum requires gravity to work a lot more like electricity than we thought it did.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
Entropy, "Jefimenko shows that Maxwell's equations aren't entirely accurate, and, more importantly, don't describe the actual causes of the electromagnetic forces."
Let me explain it for you then. A magnetic field is nothing more then a spinning frequency creating a vacuum that has only a resistance to its self as both a positive and a negative. Therefore, creating a positive, being the suction and a negative being the exhaust.
It does however have a resistance to iron cores, some stronger then others. That resistance is only a positive resistance causing the attraction.
That?s my theory. Now go to the thread "What is electricity?"
It's amazing what a 9th grade drop out can teach you. That?s 100% pure common sense and nothing more.
Remember to always keep a open mind when trying to solve a problem and your common sense should lead the way to the solution.
Quote from: nightlife on December 19, 2007, 12:31:32 AM
Let me explain it for you then. A magnetic field is nothing more then a spinning frequency creating a vacuum that has only a resistance to its self as both a positive and a negative. Therefore, creating a positive, being the suction and a negative being the exhaust.
Your words are meaningless.
Entropy, "Your words are meaningless."
LOL, Thank you for those kind words and please think real hard about what my words mean before you say that to me again.
Whoa ladies lets keep this thread polite ok :-\
Mr.Entropy you more than anyone should be able to understand what nighlife described, if not I will translate it to english for you.
QuoteLet me explain it for you then. A magnetic field is nothing more then a spinning frequency creating a vacuum that has only a resistance to its self as both a positive and a negative. Therefore, creating a positive, being the suction and a negative being the exhaust.
QuoteA magnetic field is nothing more then a spinning frequency creating a vacuum that has only a resistance to its self as both a positive and a negative
-A magnetic field could be considered opposing charges spinning around each other with a given period of oscillation (frequency), the centripital force of the spin could be considered a vacuum intrinsic to the charges.
QuoteTherefore, creating a positive, being the suction and a negative being the exhaust
- the inner positive proton in attraction to the negative electron creates as suction force as centripital force relative to the electron spinning around it, the outer electron also produces a predomenantly negative (exhaust) charge to surrounding charges.
Sounds a lot like a description of the relative forces in an atom if you ask me, you know the conerstone of physics ;D
This thread is highly inaccurate and highly misleading...
Electricity IS MAGNETISM. Magnetism IS ELECTRICITY. They are both the same thing...
If magnetism doesn't exist, then does that mean all permanent magnets are holding electricity?? What comes first, electricity or magnets? Well since you can not make electricity without magnets, I would say, electricity is magnetism. DUH!
Magnetism is not a single force, it is TWO forces working together. When those two forces are separated and channeled through passages, they are called electricity. The only reason they seem different is because when magnetism goes from AC to DC, they have different characteristics, but in a way, there is no difference.
You can explain the exact reason why electric circuts work when you think of electricity as magnetism. Because magnetism can only work when it is channeled in a loop. Just like how electricity needs to be a closed circut loop.
Please read Ed Leedskalnins "Magnetic Current", he tells you experiments you can do to prove electricity is just magnetism.
p.s. Maxwell was a nobody. Ed Leedskalnin has physical proof of his findings... and so do the Egyptians. The Egyptians teach about magnetism.
Quote from: allcanadian on December 19, 2007, 02:30:58 PM
Mr.Entropy you more than anyone should be able to understand what nighlife described, if not I will translate it to english for you.
I don't think so...
Quote
-A magnetic field could be considered opposing charges spinning around each other with a given period of oscillation (frequency), the centripital force of the spin could be considered a vacuum intrinsic to the charges.
- the inner positive proton in attraction to the negative electron creates as suction force as centripital force relative to the electron spinning around it, the outer electron also produces a predomenantly negative (exhaust) charge to surrounding charges.
I certainly understand what
you are saying, but to credit that meaning to nightlife is a stretch.Ã, After all, it's not quite right, is it?Ã, You had to get a lot of stuff wrong just to make it fit.Ã, You know that electrons and protons don't spin around each other as peers, for example, because the atomic nucleus is very much heavier than electrons.Ã, You also know that the positive charges don't significantly contribute the the magnetic fields in either permanent or electromagnets -- it's all about the orbits and intrinsic spin of electrons.
You give your own meaning to nightlife's words the same way people fill in details from their own life to match the vague generalities provided by a fortune teller, or the way real events are made to fit a Nostradamus quatrain by being overly generous in the interpretation.
This is what nightlife said:
QuoteLet me explain it for you then. A magnetic field is nothing more then a spinning frequency creating a vacuum that has only a resistance to its self as both a positive and a negative. Therefore, creating a positive, being the suction and a negative being the exhaust.
I'm sorry, but it offends me that someone would pull this crap out of his behind, and present it in a condescending way ("let me explain it for you then") as some kind of revelation, while dismissing ("nothing more than") the excellent work of someone like Oleg Jefimenko.
A lot of good people like Jefimenko and Tesla, as well as the classical figures, have done a whole lot of really good work in figuring out what electricity and magnetism really are.Ã, It isn't the kind of stuff you dismiss on a whim, to supplant with mumbo-jumbo.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: 0ne on December 19, 2007, 04:07:24 PM
What comes first, electricity or magnets? Well since you can not make electricity without magnets, I would say, electricity is magnetism. DUH!
I can make electricity with a chemical battery, a solar cell, a fuel cell, a beta-voltaic cell, a Wimhurst machine, a Van de Graff generator, or by rubbing my feet on the carpet. None of these require magnets.
You have this one backwards, I'm afraid. The magnetic field is created entirely by moving charges. It can also cause charges to move, but there are many other things that can cause charges to move as well.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr.Entropy
I would say you are right in every respect and I knew you would catch my "spinning around each other " statement as well, I didn't correct it on purpose.
QuoteYou give your own meaning to nightlife's words the same way people fill in details from their own life to match the vague generalities provided by a fortune teller, or the way real events are made to fit a Nostradamus quatrain by being overly generous in the interpretation.
I think this statement is very correct, this is what I do----this is what all of us do I think. The only reality we know is our own, and we have our own opinions and everything must revolve around our opinions whether we believe this or not. I have come to understand the greatest gift anyone could give me is there opinion, there perspective . Right or wrong I will accept everyones perspective as it relates to me, because I am the only "me" I know, I cannot truly understand "there" reality but I will listen and I will respect there opinion because it makes "me" a better person, it helps me understand the other perspective. As you say too many people push there opinion in a condescending way and I am afraid I am as guity as anyone in this respect, but I think we do this so we can be heard, so we can make our point.
In any case I do respect your opinion and I thank everyone here for being here . Im not sure we appreciate how unique we are for no other reason than just making an effort to be here in this forum when others would dismiss us as a bunch of crackpots.
A new year is almost here and my intuition tells me this is not going to be just another year, the winds of change are starting to blow in our favour. Personally I have found many of the answers I have been searching for thanks to many of the people in this forum, so I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year.
P.S.--- Is magnetism a myth? Honestly I do not know nor could I say , but it sure makes one think doesn't it. ;)
@allcanadian
Well said,
All the theories concepts, and beliefs about energy and matter have some truth and some falseness. It is like a giant 3-D jig-saw puzzle with more than one piece that can fit in each place, we must move forward with an open mind trying all the different combinations until we get it right, that is very frustrating because you may have it almost complete down to the last piece but that piece does not fit and you need to start over. But have faith all has not been lost knowledge and wisdom has been retained.
I wish everyone a safe and pleasant Holiday.
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on December 19, 2007, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: 0ne on December 19, 2007, 04:07:24 PM
What comes first, electricity or magnets? Well since you can not make electricity without magnets, I would say, electricity is magnetism. DUH!
I can make electricity with a chemical battery, a solar cell, a fuel cell, a beta-voltaic cell, a Wimhurst machine, a Van de Graff generator, or by rubbing my feet on the carpet. None of these require magnets.
You have this one backwards, I'm afraid. The magnetic field is created entirely by moving charges. It can also cause charges to move, but there are many other things that can cause charges to move as well.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
I'm affraid you need to open your eyes and see that EVERYTHING IS A MAGNET! Protons and Electrons carry "electric charges", these "charges" create "electro
magnetic fields". The potons and electrons themselves ARE SMALL MAGNETS.
Chemicals are strong magnets at a subatomic scale. Solar cells collect magnets from the Sun. Of course solar cells themselves are made of protons and electrons which are magnets. Heck even your feet, socks, and carpet are magnets, thats why when you rub them together you make "electricity", just like when you move magnets over a coil like a generator! Wow, YOU HAVE MAGNETIC GENERATORS ON YOUR FEET! JUST LIKE JESUS WHEN HE WALKED ON
DIAMAGNETIC WATER! Did Jesus rub his feet on carpet before he walked on water?
Imagine this invention, an under water electromagnetic perpulsion system. No more sping blades, just a special eletromagnet!
hmm i should stop telling you the future inventions... I might scare you with teleportation, like Tesla did lol..
@One
I am afraid you are right!
Well almost right.
What is a magnet made of, and why does it behave differently with different elements?
And what is electro made of in an electromagnet?
Are all magnets the same or are there different types of magnets?
Quote from: 0ne on December 20, 2007, 01:18:08 PM
I'm affraid you need to open your eyes and see that EVERYTHING IS A MAGNET!
Oh, I see... Everything is a magnet... Please understand that when I say "magnet", I mean something different. Peanut butter, for example, is not a magnet according to my definition. I use the word "thing" to refer to things in general, because I find that people already know what it means. I don't need to explain that "EVERYTHING IS A THING!", for example. I will remember to substitute the word "thing" for "magnet" in all your future writings.
So... when you said that "you can't create electricity without magnets", I should have read "you can't create electricity without things". Well, I guess I've got some egg on my face right now, because I agree with that 100 percent. It is indeed impossible to create electricity without things!
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: allcanadian on December 18, 2007, 08:39:18 PM
You may find this interesting, there is no such thing as magnetism ;) just like tesla said, Its all electric baby yea!
Quote:
"Maxwell?s formulation, however, eliminated consideration of the angular component of the force between current elements. It also removed the most fundamental of Amp?re?s assumptions?the unity of electricity and magnetism?by introducing the concept of a magnetic field. There is no magnetic field in any of the writings of Amp?re, nor of his successors in electrodynamics, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. Magnetism, for them, is considered an epiphenomenon of electricity; it is the force of electrodynamic attraction or repulsion acting between circuits of electricity, called magnetic molecules (and which came to be known later as electrons)."
@http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
or maybe this?
Quote:
"The discovery of the phenomena of electrical and magnetic induction had introduced a new element into the considerations of electrical law, not taken up in Amp?re's 1826 work. There thus existed, side by side, three seemingly valid descriptions of the electrical interaction: (1) the Coulomb-Poisson law, describing the interaction of two electrical masses at rest; (2) the Amp?re law, describing the interaction of elements of moving electricity, and: (3) a description of the laws of induction, elaborated by Emil Lenz and Franz Neumann. In his Fundamental Electrical Law, stated in 1846, Weber achieved the unification of these various phenomena under a single conception.
Instead of the mathematical entities, described as current elements by Amp?re, Weber hypothesized the existence within the conductor of positive and negative electrical particles. He assumed that the presence of an electrical tension caused these particles to move at equal velocities in opposite directions. If one regards an Amp?re current element as containing, at any given instant, a positive and a negative electrical particle, passing each other, then in the pairwise relationship of two current elements, there are four interactions to be considered. By the Coulomb law, these interactions, consisting of two repulsions and two attractions, cancel each other. However, the elementary experiments of Amp?re had shown that a motion is produced between the wires, implying the existence of a force not described by the Coulomb law. For example, two parallel conducting wires attract each other when the current in the two wires flows in the same direction, and repel each other when the opposite is the case. The situation is perfectly well explained under the Amp?re force law, when one takes into account the angular relationship of the respective current elements. However, Weber's unifying approach was to assume that the relative velocities of the electrical particles produced a modification in the Coulomb electrostatic force, to produce the resultant force between the wires. Considering all the configurations which Amp?re had examined, as well as those arising from the phenomena of induction, he was able to formulate a general statement of the Fundamental Electrical Law. This showed that the general law describing the force of interaction of two electrical particles, depends upon the relative velocities and the relative accelerations of the particles. The Coulomb electrostatic law thus becomes a special case of Weber's general law, when the particles are at relative rest."
@http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/weber.html
So really magnetism doesn't exist it is electric, a Permanent Magnet is nothing more than moving electric charges held in alignment in matter. The scientific community is covering up Maxwells screwup, and we all know you can't give a nobel prize to a screwup, that would be embarrasing. :D
As well Wilhelm Eduard Weber and homopolar generator are two words no physicist wants to hear.
I have seen the devil and looked into his eyes and his name was vanity.
I realise this is an old topic,but is anyone interested in discussing this further.
It would seem that you (Alcanadian) are somewhat on the right track,and i would like to continue this discussion if you are still present here on this forum.
You could say that i have been limited as to what area's i was to indulge during the past 7 years,where that limit was set by our professors.
There are,or should i say !were! topics you dare not discuss in the mainstream science club.
I call it a club,as that is what it seems to be,and a boy's club at that.I hope the same dose not apply here !boys club!
Needless to say,a small group of us wish to further investigate and develop the !out of bounds! subject matter of magnetism-what it is,and it's effect on electrons through P/N junctions.
I see you describe the magnetic field as being of a positively and negatively charge particle cloud--the particle cloud is what we/i use to describe what most refer to as a magnetic field.
So,to cut a long story short,i(and some others) had to leave our place of education,in order to continue on with our research and development in this area. If yourself or anybody else has taken this !topic! any further,i sure would like to hear as to how far you have progressed on the subject matter.
Christie.
Christie
would seem you offer a resource to this open source community which should be nourished and not discouraged .
You [your group] are Open source researchers [maybe a link to your group??]?
I will look thru for contacts which are relevant to your query.
and yes we need more women in these fields of open source alternative energy harvesting.
perhaps you start a thread ?]
respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: ramset on August 19, 2018, 11:43:32 AM
Christie
would seem you offer a resource to this open source community which should be nourished and not discouraged .
You [your group] are Open source researchers [maybe a link to your group??]?
I will look thru for contacts which are relevant to your query.
and yes we need more women in these fields of open source alternative energy harvesting.
perhaps you start a thread ?]
respectfully
Chet K
Hello Chet.
Thanks for responding.
Our group is only made up of 5 people.
We are all close friends,although there is quite some distance between most of us.
I am lucky enough to have one of the group live close enough that we are able to get together 1 weekend a month to carry out further development on the subject matter,being electron displacement through P/N junctions.
To make this a little clearer,imagine a PV cell,but where the electrons are knocked through the junction via (what most call) an enclosed magnetic field.
The above information may assist in finding interested persons.
Are you an experimenter in this field Chet ?.
I will hold off for a bit in regards to starting a subject thread,at least until i see if there is some intetest in this area.
Christie.
Quote from: PositronFlow on August 19, 2018, 11:03:17 PM
Hello Chet.
Thanks for responding.
Our group is only made up of 5 people.
We are all close friends,although there is quite some distance between most of us.
I am lucky enough to have one of the group live close enough that we are able to get together 1 weekend a month to carry out further development on the subject matter,being electron displacement through P/N junctions.
To make this a little clearer,imagine a PV cell,but where the electrons are knocked through the junction via (what most call) an enclosed magnetic field.
The above information may assist in finding interested persons.
Are you an experimenter in this field Chet ?.
I will hold off for a bit in regards to starting a subject thread,at least until i see if there is some intetest in this area.
Christie.
Christie,
I have done considerable research with PV arrays with the goal being to increase the panel efficiency via electronic circuit manipulation. I have also done some limited experimentation with applied electromagnetic fields on PV arrays in search of any anomalous behavior but seemed to find none. Do you have bench experiments that show electron flow thru otherwise "blackened" arrays?
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on August 20, 2018, 08:44:04 AM
Christie,
I have done considerable research with PV arrays with the goal being to increase the panel efficiency via electronic circuit manipulation. I have also done some limited experimentation with applied electromagnetic fields on PV arrays in search of any anomalous behavior but seemed to find none. Do you have bench experiments that show electron flow thru otherwise "blackened" arrays?
Regards,
Pm
Hello Partzman
Yes,many hours of not only bench tests,but more so in cell development.
At this point in time,our success is limited.
This limit is due to the diamagnetic values of the materials use in the doping process in the N domain of the cell.
,where those values are lower than required to obtain a substantial output power volume.
The best achieved to this date is a mere 3.8mW from a two inch x two inch cell.
We believe once a doping compound with a higher diamagnetic strength is found,will result in greater output power from the cell.
The failed experiments you carried out on standard PV cells is to be expected,as the cells N layer must use a diamagnetic doping compound.
If you just wish to increase the efficiency of a standard PV cell,then the best and cheapest method is via water cooling the cell itself.
Christie
Quote from: PositronFlow on August 21, 2018, 12:52:38 AM
Hello Partzman
Yes,many hours of not only bench tests,but more so in cell development.
At this point in time,our success is limited.
This limit is due to the diamagnetic values of the materials use in the doping process in the N domain of the cell.
,where those values are lower than required to obtain a substantial output power volume.
The best achieved to this date is a mere 3.8mW from a two inch x two inch cell.
We believe once a doping compound with a higher diamagnetic strength is found,will result in greater output power from the cell.
The failed experiments you carried out on standard PV cells is to be expected,as the cells N layer must use a diamagnetic doping compound.
If you just wish to increase the efficiency of a standard PV cell,then the best and cheapest method is via water cooling the cell itself.
Christie
Hello Christie,
Thank you for explaining the direction of your research as I now understand why my simple tests yielded nothing. Unfortunately, most of us do not have access to a semi fabrication lab so we wouldn't be able to contribute much if anything to your effort.
Thanks also for the suggestion of cooling the PV arrays to raise efficiency. I was looking for a retro-fit solution utilizing the highly parametric capacitance of the forward biased p-n junction in both light and dark conditions.
Best of luck to you and your team in your research.
Regards,
Pm
I'm sorry to say that but pv cells tapping on magnetic part of applied em wave was already known and and patented and buried