A wild frenzy went up amongst scientists when Alfred Wegener stated his theory of continental drift. He was a meteorologist and came forth with proof showing how the continents fit together and fossils of same-types in now separated continents. Scientists argued he was not a real geologist, did not know what he was talking about because he could not explain the mechanism how the continents moved. In the 1950's the mid Atlantic ridge was discovered proving Wegener but reassessed and changed into what is now known as Plate Tectonics.
Darwin, who failed math, failed medical school and theology school finally was given a job thanks to his father-in-law as a naturalist. On Galapagos Islands he noticed a variety of fossils but similarities to other species. He wrote several books describing his theory of evolution. Another scientist, while suffering delusions from a malarial fever, wrote the same theory, but with greater detail. The two met, but it was decide that Darwin would receive all the credit. Biologists today admit his theory goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics but state that under the curriculum accepted by Universities they have to teach the Theory anyways. A physicisist argued that the 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied to the theory of evolution was debunked because it just showed what occurs due to the radiation and heat of solar rays. He suggested that at the time electric bolts were flashing through methane gases and primordial goop that the solar rays had no effect on the results. They have tried to copy this but only came up with 17 amino acids (it takes 21 to make a complete protein) and then it immediately fell apart, being too unstable.
Scientists argue that the effects of man on the Earth are too insignificant and would not make any difference on Plate Tectonics, Volcanic Eruptions, or Earthquake. This was a geologists. Then in the very next sentence he describes how in Colorado they were having earthquakes and discovered it was due to putting contaminants, trash into a fault in Colorado. They stopped the dumping, the earthquakes subsided.
Scientist disproved the bumblebee could fly. It went against some law (I don't know which one). The bumble bee refused to bow under the pressure of politically inspired scientists and continued to fly.
Scientists are arguing that perpetual motion is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yet in the same breath they send out shuttles loaded with satellites. When they move at a particular speed at a particlular direction desired (previously calculated) they let loose the satellite and it keeps moving that speed, that direction, not by any motor, or fire, or propulsion, until finally gravitational forces bring it down. Where is the change from a hotter environment to a colder environment in that? I'm still trying to figure this one out. I suppose maybe one guy was right and really they are just Hollywood devised movies like Star Wars and the satellites aren't really out there and the World is flat, tomatoes will kill you if you eat them because 100% people who eat them die from car wrecks, strokes, heart attacks, murder, accidents, etc. Heaviside component of energy is black voodoo energy and if a black cat crosses your path you'll have bad luck!
Energy cannot be created, it is the 4th state of matter, but scientists are apparently speaking out of two sides of the mouth when they say it can't be destroyed. If it can't be destroyed, then you should be able to recapture it, recycle it, thus use it over and over and over by regenerating your battery with it. You should be able to capture energy while your driving from the circular movement of your wheels or even turbines set up to capture the wind you face while you move and resend the energy harnessed back to your battery or generator. Why is this impossible and we are all called a bunch of crackpots saying we just broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics when we suggest this?
Well, tey say now that the bumblebee in fact can fly according to scientific proovs.They now understand why it can fly.
When it comes to satelites, they are floating in an almost non matter space, hence extremely low friction. If you try to pull out some energy from it, the satelite will slow down and eventually fall down to earth.
Energy can for sure be reused. You can power your car with electricity, the breakes are replaced by a dynamo that charge the battery. The only energy loss you then have is the friction in tyres, motor, air etc.
Science has been wrong many times, but when it comes to these two laws of thermodynamics, I'm not sure they are false.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on April 19, 2008, 05:46:13 PM
Well, tey say now that the bumblebee in fact can fly according to scientific proovs.They now understand why it can fly.
When it comes to satelites, they are floating in an almost non matter space, hence extremely low friction. If you try to pull out some energy from it, the satelite will slow down and eventually fall down to earth.
Energy can for sure be reused. You can power your car with electricity, the breakes are replaced by a dynamo that charge the battery. The only energy loss you then have is the friction in tyres, motor, air etc.
Science has been wrong many times, but when it comes to these two laws of thermodynamics, I'm not sure they are false.
Vidar
I don't think they are false, either, but I wonder if we consider all the possibilities before immediately arguing out against new ideas, like Wegener's. He could not explain the mechanism, and it was more complicated than he realized but he was not completely wrong. Same with the bumblebee, they just did not understand the mechanism.
I was just looking into quantum physics and it stated that classical physics is better used to describe everyday life like in our atmosphere, and tv's, radios, etc, but quantum physics better describes chemistry, geophysics, space, and computers. When I learned about plate tectonics there was an issue at the time I think Quantum physics would better explain why when during subduction the plate goes down and extreme pressure is applied, and the plate turns to magma. Now usually above, temperature and pressure are proportionately related. But in this case, there was some argument that it would not be enough to cause the extreme temperature. Could this involve zero point energy? It is stated that the earth has an electromagnetic field from within and that electromagnetic fields are involved in creating a vacuum. Can you explain this better to me?
Geoscience curriculum does not include physics and I'm convinced this is a mistake because I'm finding that I'm misunderstanding alot of concepts, I've seen a geologist arguing with a biologist, and I'm sure it's because of what we don't know. If we got a better understanding, of how it works then I think we'd probably understand one another better. I'm really thinking of going back and taking physics until I get to Quantum physics. Has anyone met climatologists or geologists, or geographers that misunderstood physical concepts because of lack of knowledge in this area? Or is this just around here where the schools are pro liberal arts and make you take alot of foreign language and philosophy and literature and fine arts instead of concentrating on math and science, even if you're working on a degree in science?
This is really frustrating, but thanks for being patient with me while I try to remain open minded and learn, and will cross reference you when you bring up issues that contradict things, however, I have found that the contradictions have came out right.
Dyson says you have to fail 300,000 before you get it right, but each time is not a failure, it's an opportunity to learn. Be patient with me. ;)
Thanks
Beck
I have another question: Actually several:
There is some discussion about a study at the University of Utah that it is thought that the poles of the Earth may switch by our children's time or grandchildren's time. (I don't know how they are coming to that conclusion) If the poles switch, what causes that switch? And what would be the result on plate tectonics? Could we have more incidences of Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions for awhile from the sudden switch? They said it would occur over the time period of only a day. (I don't know how they came to that conclusion)
Also, I just read that there is some Quantum equation that would prove that you can't calculate an exact amount of energy because sometimes electrons are as waves and sometimes as particles. Can someone clear this up for me? If that is so, then how could scientists ever predict extactely when a volcanic eruption is going off decades ahead of time, or earthquake as they're predicting in California in the near future or even when the poles are going to switch? Unless they are looking at uniformitarianism and guessing by the amount of time that has passed and the number of millions of years ago each pole switch was (the last one was Pleistocene 0-1.6 years ago it switched (this is approximate) a little more than 0.5 million years, <1.0 million years, then again just before 1.0 million years, just after 1.5 million years then 6 more times before 2.0 million years. They are not even, some are thicker than others, some are really really thin. This is measured by a magnetic profile as recorded by a magnetometer (Wicander, R. & Monroe, J, Essentials of Geology, 1995, pg 25) I have other editions since but this information has stayed the same.
Question:
If the Earth has... let me quote from former book " The magnetic field of the Earth has lines of force just like those of a bar magnet. The strength of the magnetic field changes uniformly from the magnetic equator to the magnetic poles. This change in strength causes a dip needle to parallel the Earth's surface only at the magnetic equator, whereas its inclination with respect to the surface increases to 90 degrees at the magnetic poles."
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_Theory
how the Earth sustains its electro magnetic field. Why can't we copy the same way the Earth does it? If the model is true, it should be able to be somehow reproduced, if we have the knowledge and actual understanding of how. .. and the right tools. I don't know about the magma ... don't see reproducing that :o At least not for a motor.
Question:
If with perpetual motion that using energy from it would slow it down, would this not be the same for the Earth too? They say it is slowing down, a German scientist bringing this up, but then does all this energy use from the ground, petroleum, gas, coal then burning it, does it effect the rotation? Considering we are quite insignificant. But we are changing it a little. What about changing the atmosphere with all this pollution. I heard a scientist mention we could send particles in the air to stop global warming (that scares me because I keep thinking--Asthma, allergies, cancer, emphysema, overdoing it, and they tell me 5 volcanic eruptions could lower the temp 5 degrees C. which could lead to another "little ice age") They also mentioned sending up sulfuric acid? I hope I misunderstood. But sulfur is released in volcanic eruptions and the ash causes alot of problems, even for the respiratory system. I'm feeling a little nervous here.
Beck
Beck
Quote from: GeoscienceStudent on April 19, 2008, 11:24:24 PM
I have another question: Actually several:
There is some discussion about a study at the University of Utah that it is thought that the poles of the Earth may switch by our children's time or grandchildren's time. (I don't know how they are coming to that conclusion) If the poles switch, what causes that switch? And what would be the result on plate tectonics? Could we have more incidences of Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions for awhile from the sudden switch? They said it would occur over the time period of only a day. (I don't know how they came to that conclusion)
I have no knowledge of what goes on at Utah Uni, nor of where they got that figure of one day, but I do know that various measurements including sattelite
imagery over the past decade clearly show the earths magnetic poles to be slowly moving off their "normal" positions. The last pictures I saw of this
were sattelite images showing the southern magnetic pole to already have shifted significantly off the "mark", and the northern one was also off, albeit less
drastic. Regional measurements on southern Africa (where I lived for a few years) supported those observations. Extrapolations of the measured shift
came to an estimate of between 10 and 50 years before a magnetic pole flip would become reality. Or at least, that's what I recall from several articles a couple
of years ago.
Whether or not it really is related I don't know for certain, but I have also read a book called "the Maya Prophecies" written by a Maya-obsessed astrophysicist
who had studied the solar micro- and macro-cycles and worked out their periodicity, only to discover the almost identical cycle calender when he was on holiday
visiting a Maya temple. He cross referenced the two and concluded the Mayan calender does not end for nothing: it ends exactly at the time the sun is to
complete its current macro-cycle, as he had calculated during his studies. That author claims the end of a solar macro-cycle involves the flipping of the
suns magnetic field, which will cause the magnetic fields of other bodies such as Earth to experience opposing magnetism and finally demagnetise and
remagnetise oppositely. This means: flipping magnetic poles. This means the Earth magnetic field must first decrease to zero and then build up again
until it is fully reversed. And that means that there will be zero Earth magnetic field for a while. Although there is no consensus about it, many scientists
believe the Earths ionosphere, the layer of charged particles that shields our planet from most of the deadly cosmic (solar) radiation, is caused and/or maintained
and/or strengthened by the magnetic field (combined with the planets rotation). If the field goes, so does the ionosphere. That will result in a nice long
overdose of lethal cosmic radiation raining down on the planetary surface. And that will kill most organisms on Earth. (One of the periodic occurrences
over the millions of years of history of our planet that the author actually uses to partially substantiate his theory.)
Also, and again there is no consensus, it seems to be quite likely that a reversed solar magnetic field opposing the Earth magnetic field may have severe
consequences for the tectonic plates and especially the earth core. If the core is really a big magnet, obviously it will experience strong opposing
forces, and if possible simply reverse inside the mantle&crust causing a mere violent magma current. But if it can't easily reverse (due to possible
viscosity, density, pressure, etc of the magma?) it may convey this opposing "push" to the mantle&crust and cause extremely violent earthquakes,
volcano eruptions, etc.
Whatever is really going to happen, it seems the end of the Maya calender may be involved and if so,
I'd pick a really good spot for my 2012 new years eve. ;) ;D
QuoteAlso, I just read that there is some Quantum equation that would prove that you can't calculate an exact amount of energy because sometimes electrons are as waves and sometimes as particles. Can someone clear this up for me?
Nope, sorry, don't know that effect... Are you perhaps confusing it with the
uncertainty principle? That says that we cannot
measure (not calculate) both the
position and the
velocity of a particle at the same time. We can measure the speed of a particle, but then we can never accurately obtain its exact position, and vice versa. As far as i know my quantum physics, electrons are always particles and never waves, although it is possible to make waves
of particles, but that's not what you were talking about. It seems more likely that what you read referred to
photons,
and those buggers are both particles and waves at the same time. :) That's just for photons, though: they have no mass, yes they are considered to be particles
in a certain interpretation, but in another they can clearly be shown to be waves. In contrast to electrons, which are particles with mass and can clearly be shown
not to be waves. (An electron version of the famous "two slit experiment" proves this.)
QuoteIf that is so, then how could scientists ever predict extactely when a volcanic eruption is going off decades ahead of time, or earthquake as they're predicting in California in the near future or even when the poles are going to switch?
Well that's easy: they can't. ;D They can make quite good educated guesses, but I have yet to see an exact prediction of volcanic eruption decades in advance.
It's like the weather: if you have good computer models you can make quite good educated guesses of what's going to happen... but not decades in the future...
As far as I know all even remotely accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions are based on extensive study of that specific tectonic region, comparisons with
other detailed observations of other regions and situations of volcanism, a bit of guesswork, and many very recent measurements fed into the model...
But to get back to the original matter: I don't think they use any quantumphysics to calculate those prediction models. That's macrophysics and quite
large scale as well. Macrophysics works, and you don't need to use any QM to calculat macro-physical systems and processes correctly. Only if you're
going to do stuff on the quantum scale do you need to switch to quantumphysics, becasue at those tiny scales our macrophysical "laws" don't all work
in the same way anymore. Just for example: in the quantumworld, two particles can be at the same place at the same time, or one particle can be at two
places at the same time. Clearly that is not so with macrophysical object such as baseballs, for example. ;)
QuoteQuestion:
If the Earth has... let me quote from former book " The magnetic field of the Earth has lines of force just like those of a bar magnet. The strength of the magnetic field changes uniformly from the magnetic equator to the magnetic poles. This change in strength causes a dip needle to parallel the Earth's surface only at the magnetic equator, whereas its inclination with respect to the surface increases to 90 degrees at the magnetic poles."
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_Theory
how the Earth sustains its electro magnetic field. Why can't we copy the same way the Earth does it? If the model is true, it should be able to be somehow reproduced, if we have the knowledge and actual understanding of how. .. and the right tools. I don't know about the magma ... don't see reproducing that :o At least not for a motor.
I don't follow your point. What exactly do you want to copy, and what exactly is it that is not copied in the example of a dynamo, in your opinion?
Please clarify.
QuoteQuestion:
If with perpetual motion that using energy from it would slow it down, would this not be the same for the Earth too? They say it is slowing down, a German scientist bringing this up, but then does all this energy use from the ground, petroleum, gas, coal then burning it, does it effect the rotation?
well, it is remotely possible that our pumping of petroleum and gas has an influence on the Earths rotation due to the shifts in mass division over the
surface of the globe, but the amount of mass in all those fosil fuels is negligable compared to the total mass of the Earth, isn't it? No, the slowing
down of the Earth as mentioned by that scientist, probably describes the "magnetic drag" that a rotor can experience when moving through a magnetic field in
a dynamo. If you've ever spun a dynamo you know you must input energy for it to output electricity, and this energy expenditure causes the rotor to slow
down, experience "drag". Well, if the Earth is a rotor and the ionosphere the result of a dynamo effect caused by the Earth rotating in its own magnetic field,
then that should indeed cause some "drag" on the rotor.
QuoteConsidering we are quite insignificant. But we are changing it a little. What about changing the atmosphere with all this pollution. I heard a scientist mention we could send particles in the air to stop global warming (that scares me because I keep thinking--Asthma, allergies, cancer, emphysema, overdoing it, and they tell me 5 volcanic eruptions could lower the temp 5 degrees C. which could lead to another "little ice age") They also mentioned sending up sulfuric acid? I hope I misunderstood. But sulfur is released in volcanic eruptions and the ash causes alot of problems, even for the respiratory system. I'm feeling a little nervous here.
lol checkout the "chemtrail" phenomenon and see if you're still only a little nervous... ;)
"I have no knowledge of what goes on at Utah Uni, nor of where they got that figure of one day, but I do know that various measurements including sattelite
imagery over the past decade clearly show the earths magnetic poles to be slowly moving off their "normal" positions. The last pictures I saw of this
were sattelite images showing the southern magnetic pole to already have shifted significantly off the "mark", and the northern one was also off, albeit less
drastic. Regional measurements on southern Africa (where I lived for a few years) supported those observations. Extrapolations of the measured shift
came to an estimate of between 10 and 50 years before a magnetic pole flip would become reality. Or at least, that's what I recall from several articles a couple
of years ago.
Whether or not it really is related I don't know for certain, but I have also read a book called "the Maya Prophecies" written by a Maya-obsessed astrophysicist
who had studied the solar micro- and macro-cycles and worked out their periodicity, only to discover the almost identical cycle calender when he was on holiday
visiting a Maya temple. He cross referenced the two and concluded the Mayan calender does not end for nothing: it ends exactly at the time the sun is to
complete its current macro-cycle, as he had calculated during his studies. That author claims the end of a solar macro-cycle involves the flipping of the
suns magnetic field, which will cause the magnetic fields of other bodies such as Earth to experience opposing magnetism and finally demagnetise and
remagnetise oppositely. This means: flipping magnetic poles. This means the Earth magnetic field must first decrease to zero and then build up again
until it is fully reversed. And that means that there will be zero Earth magnetic field for a while. Although there is no consensus about it, many scientists
believe the Earths ionosphere, the layer of charged particles that shields our planet from most of the deadly cosmic (solar) radiation, is caused and/or maintained
and/or strengthened by the magnetic field (combined with the planets rotation). If the field goes, so does the ionosphere. That will result in a nice long
overdose of lethal cosmic radiation raining down on the planetary surface. And that will kill most organisms on Earth. (One of the periodic occurrences
over the millions of years of history of our planet that the author actually uses to partially substantiate his theory.)
Also, and again there is no consensus, it seems to be quite likely that a reversed solar magnetic field opposing the Earth magnetic field may have severe
consequences for the tectonic plates and especially the earth core. If the core is really a big magnet, obviously it will experience strong opposing
forces, and if possible simply reverse inside the mantle&crust causing a mere violent magma current. But if it can't easily reverse (due to possible
viscosity, density, pressure, etc of the magma?) it may convey this opposing "push" to the mantle&crust and cause extremely violent earthquakes,
volcano eruptions, etc.
Whatever is really going to happen, it seems the end of the Maya calender may be involved and if so,
I'd pick a really good spot for my 2012 new years eve. "
You're the first to respond and have any knowledge about this besides from my university, so I thank you for addressing this.
Question: I noticed on just one electromagnetic field that switching the poles reversed the rotation, so that was why I wanted to replicate basically a Dynamo effect to see if the rotation was still reversed. It seems odd, and seeing it helps me to understand better.
"Nope, sorry, don't know that effect... Are you perhaps confusing it with the uncertainty principle? That says that we cannot measure (not calculate) both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. We can measure the speed of a particle, but then we can never accurately obtain its exact position, and vice versa. As far as i know my quantum physics, electrons are always particles and never waves, although it is possible to make waves of particles, but that's not what you were talking about. It seems more likely that what you read referred to photons,"
You're right, it was protons and measurement. I misread it. it is the uncertainty principle I was trying to describe. Thank you again.
"That's macrophysics and quite
large scale as well. Macrophysics works, and you don't need to use any QM to calculat macro-physical systems and processes correctly. Only if you're
going to do stuff on the quantum scale do you need to switch to quantumphysics, becasue at those tiny scales our macrophysical "laws" don't all work
in the same way anymore. Just for example: in the quantumworld, two particles can be at the same place at the same time, or one particle can be at two
places at the same time. Clearly that is not so with macrophysical object such as baseballs, for example. "
Macrophysics ..interesting, you've just given me something else to look up. I'll check it out.
"If you've ever spun a dynamo you know you must input energy for it to output electricity, and this energy expenditure causes the rotor to slow
down, experience "drag". Well, if the Earth is a rotor and the ionosphere the result of a dynamo effect caused by the Earth rotating in its own magnetic field,
then that should indeed cause some "drag" on the rotor"
That's the problem, I don't know how to make one but would like to see how. It makes sense to have input. The sun apparently sends quite a bit of energy on the earth, and cell convection is stated to be involved in the Earths inner electromagnetic field. Does the Earth use the solar energy as a further input energy source to continue the cycles?
You seem to have some knowledge here, to understand, and even correct my mistakes seeing through what I meant anyways. Are you an engineer or have a degree in a science field?
Koen1
Correction to my former statement..and apology.
I rechecked the article on Quantum Theory. It describes a marble and a double-split experiment with electrons. It shows that electrons do have wave properties. and also states in some circumstances they behave as particles.
I can't find macrophysics. Is this another name for classical physics?
When we are measuring p waves and s waves for seismic data, are these protons, electrons, or what? what exactely is the source of the waves?
Beck
I had a talk, finally with my Geology professor, and though he did not have enough time for my many questions, he did clear up some issues and agreed to talk again later.
The Earths core is extremely hot but solid due to radioactive issues at play here. It does not receive internal energy from the sun, that's inconsequential. The sun effects outside forces such as wind, climate, etc.
The polar changes are apparently occurring, yes is a fact, but it's something involving the inside. Whether the polar changes would change the course of anything is still not exactely known..too long ago for us to know and because the Dynamo motors we have we can make are completely different physics issue than the Earth's, there's no way presently that would test it at a classic physics level. We would be getting deeper than we could deal with presently.
Another thought from a scientist I thought informative. When scientists for the greater good do things that make a difference we increase the uncertainty of the negative impact.
We could use sugar cane and beets for example for ethanol, this would increase the price of sugar, reduce the use for human consumption, lower tooth decay and obesity, and cars for a couple thousand or so can be easily converted to using ethanol as opposed to buying a new one. Leave corn alone, it has too much protein and takes too much to amount to one gallon anyways. I have been told that it's too difficult to create a self-sustaining motor on cars, because anything you add to it, increases the load on it, increasing the energy needed to run it, and adding things to create efficiency often adds to the weight therefore load and so on. So it gets very complicated.
Battery operated works well, but we can only go about 100 miles or so then have to reload. Trying to add things to send energy back increases the load. Can't use tires spinning because it increases the load thus energy use. There's a problem with energy loss so if you try to reuse the energy used, each time you have less and less to recycle and eventually run out because each time you have a loss.
now when we calculated C^14 to *N^14 or Uranium, there was a half-life involved and every so many years, decay occurred and the decrease would lead to a change to the neutron or,protons, add to the mass (E=MC^2) So you reduce the mass. Brings to mind to me that energy sounds similar. Add pressure and heat to it and you decrease the time.
This was brought up when a con artist brought forth the Sarcophagus of Josephus and tablet of Solomon. The scientists tested the Carbon dating and verified that it was old. But a geologist looked at the outer film and noticed it on only one side. This was strange to have occurred in nature. He tested at what heat and pressure it was applied and found it to be too high to have been by the Sea. He rubbed some off and noted the fresh scratch marks on the lettering and debunked the thing.
However, as deep as this stuff gets, and here we are trying to contemplate this deal and arguement as to What can we do to solve Global Warming, What can we do to bring energy to all the world, how can we feed the world? It seems that the answer gets so complicated and everyone argues, refuses to at least listen to scientists that sound a little opposite of what they want to hear, they say they're not real scientists and refuse to listen. The result is that they make decisions that make an impact of negative reaction that becomes so profound that we are faced with worse issues than what we started with. Wars, famine, Rebellion, Disease distribution, Deaths from poorly engineered equipment or tainted food, and prevalently, fear over the population. Bjorn Lumborg from the Copenhagen Consensus Center, as well as several others, brought forth that we should work on things we can solve, and stop trying to solve problems that are so complex that we can't solve them. I agree as several other students at my university. We need to look at what we can do for our own country because if we keep sending out our dwindling resources we will run out, then what? Forced to find something else in a hurry. Brings to mind... Think Hurricane Katrina. We could not even take care of our own in a timely manner, or plan in such a way to deal with the threats of an oncoming Hurricane. There were warnings, but people could not get out because Economic position, lack of planning and not using the buses available, or staying behind due to responsibility to the society (Doctors, Nurses, Police, etc.) I worked once in the National Guard in Louisianna and they had things set up that would have been much more organized to provide relief medically and provide triage and assistance to get them out. How long did it take while politicians complained, pointed fingers, blamed one another, instead of calling up the present resources and letting them do their jobs? Politics is the problem but it is because the people in charge are incompetent. But whose fault is that?
Ours!
We put them there.
Too bad we could not create a mass transport by train across cities and suburbs and urban areas, and go back to horses and bicycles for visiting local stores and neighbors instead of getting into your car just to drive to the mail box. More than 25% Consumption by less than 5% population here in the USA.
*Modified for correction 4/23
Well we'll see how much our professors know when 2012 hits us ;)
I am not at all surprised that a professor in geophysics would say
the earth core has zero influence from the outside universe; he is
not an astro-, but a geo-physicist after all. ;)
As for the rest of your monologue, yes we can fix the energy problem
but so far we've not done so.
An international group was working on the first ever actual nuclear
fusion power plant in France, when the "war on terror" had to be called
and most member states in the group pulled out most of their
funding because they needed it for anti-terrorism stuff...
Now they're finally talking about building such a plant again,
but it will probably still take many years before that is done.
We could already have had fusion plants, could already have
been independant of the fossil fuel hoggers.
Just imagine what that would mean: no more need for fossil fuel,
no more skyhigh and rising oilprices, no longer a need to have to
take crap from all those dictatorships in the arab region nor to
finance their excessive richess, no need for biofuels and their
effect on food prices, zero carbon emissions...
We could already have that!
But our politicians decided going out and shooting dirt farmers
in Afghanistan was more important than freeing ourselves from
energy slavery... Decided it was more important to have evryone
hand in their bottles of water at the airports for fear of them exploding,
and more of that sillyness.
Geo and Koen:
I enjoyed reading your exchanges! It was refreshing to see a student honestly asking questions and getting an informed opinion for an answer instead of being made fun of as is too often the case in this and other forums! It is this type of dialog, repeated millions of times, which has pushed science to it's present state. You both can keep this up forever, if you like, and I. for one, will continue to listen.
The only contribution I have to this discussion, at the present, is that NOTHING changes energy wise if it still has value, or no longer exists! Period!
These are very interesting questions from Geoscience ... if the earth powers itself around the sun in orbit , how did it become in perpetual motion in orbit, and why does it stay this way? Why cant we recreate this same setup for free energy? I think Ed Leedskalnin of Coral Castle fame, made mention of this in his Magnetic Currents book or was quoted as saying it, in regards to his perpetual motion machine. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8172093674121637649
If mainstream scientists say energy cant be created or destroyed and the law of Thermodynamics applies, but in the same way dictate that the entire universe magically 'evolved' from a single dot preceeding the 'big bang', this is a paradox. How can you have both? How can you get something from nothign to start with? Most ppl who believe this story only do so because the alternative to the long winded evolution theory, is 'special creation', and most presumptiously discount that.
To understand more about biofuel scam (food as fuel), and why we are addicted to oil, see the documentary "Endgame" by Alex Jones, available free on google video. Also "who killed the electric car" interesting eye openers as to why our world is how it is. As a brief example of things that run counter to common sense;
-A world addicted to carbon fuels, while plenty of alternatives are suppressed or stiffled, like Tesla and many more. Why and who profits?
-Military machines and wars that keep growing, U.S. as example. Why and who profits? The world over theres national instability, civil wars, assassinations, Cu Deta's (however its spelt).... Gov't overthrows. Who always profits? The war makers.
-Food shortages the world over, yet politicans are calling for using BioFuels! As you suggested in yoru previous post, using Corn for fuel is a bad idea (sugar, maybe not so bad considering how overly sugar induced western society is). There are food riots going on around the world... if we start pumping food into our gas tank this is going to kill millions more. Which by modern standards isnt that bad to many ppl. i.e. to drive my car i might have to kill by starvation a poor village in a 3rd world country, who I will never see and can not be blamed for. This sounds sick and it is, but I'm sure there are pletny of people who would see no problem pumping food into their tank for the pleasure of driving! Evolution = law of the jungle, survival of the fittest (the richest?)
-Drug wars! e.g. despite marijuana being an excellent crop for food, fuel and medicine and grows easily, it is attacked by Govt as the root of all evils. Again who profits from its vilification? and why is the C1A constantly linked to the importation of heroin? John Kerry said it in his investigation.
This is only scratching the surface ... but modern science is run like a dictatorship, morals and dogmas are clinged to like religious tablets... going against the status quo is to risk your career. And often commercial interests rule the outcome of many studies.. like Dr. George Carlo (EMF), or Phyllis Mullenix (fluoride).. sorry I digress...
Truth in science is like using 'magnetic sticks and balls' to build a house, you have to piece it together yourself, all the stuff in the middle is just air and when its linked together it'll make a solid interconnecting structure. ;-)
Pete.
Quote from: astroboy77 on May 11, 2008, 05:43:33 PM
These are very interesting questions from Geoscience ... if the earth powers itself around the sun in orbit , how did it become in perpetual motion in orbit, and why does it stay this way? Why cant we recreate this same setup for free energy? I think Ed Leedskalnin of Coral Castle fame, made mention of this in his Magnetic Currents book or was quoted as saying it, in regards to his perpetual motion machine. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8172093674121637649
Pete.
According to theory, and pardon begged if I misquote something, but when a supernova exploded somewhere else, particles from it spread across the universe and those particles began a new galaxy. Particles began to swirl around to create the Sun, 4.7 billion years ago, the largest, and by fusion produces energy, that eventually will become a black hole and cause the outside membrane to cave in then explode, and another supernova occurs. There are other kinds of black holes too, some dissapate, some just stay black holes, depending on their sizes.
The particles swirled also the began to compress against each other forming the earth 4.6 billion years ago. Nuclear forces cause some elements to move toward the outside such as silicate rich substances while Iron and nickel is left in the middle. Now gravitational forces cause us to continue to revolve around the sun. It seems that our revolving is eliptical but less so recently according to a National Geographic show about global warming (telling the whole story, not Al Gore's). At first, the poles switch alot and quickly and the rotation was faster, the outside of the Earth Methane gases and lots of volcanic eruptions, but over the billions of years, this has slowed down, the last polar switch somewhere around 600,000 years ago. I found a lab showing quantum computer model of the dynamo effect and polar switch of the Earth (they mathmatically considered nuclear decay in their model that best considered the slowing rate of polar switching ) and also information showing the inside electromagnetic polar position has been moving over the past 100 years. Because the inside one rotates faster than the outside, it maintains, and prevents the outside one from switching before the inside (inside is stronger force than outside).
The earth is in motion because something set it into motion, (former explosion, then attraction and gravitational forces) but the attraction of the Sun is involved here too, then also, slowing down over time is also happening (geological time). So the Earth's inner core decides the polar swithcing, but the Sun is involved with the revolution due to the gravitational pull.
Now Question: Is there a relationship between gravitational pull of planets and magnetism?
Quote from: GeoscienceStudent on May 12, 2008, 05:16:09 PM
According to theory, and pardon begged if I misquote something, but when a supernova exploded somewhere else, particles from it spread across the universe and those particles began a new galaxy. Particles began to swirl around to create the Sun, 4.7 billion years ago, the largest, and by fusion produces energy, that eventually will become a black hole and cause the outside membrane to cave in then explode, and another supernova occurs. There are other kinds of black holes too, some dissapate, some just stay black holes, depending on their sizes.
Well actually, as far as I know, stars don't all go
supernova, that depends on their mass, and I seem to recall the "line" was at the Chandrasekar limit (spelling probably off) of 1.4 solar masses or close to that. Not all stars go black hole, those below a certain mass just "pop". ;)
QuoteNuclear forces cause some elements to move toward the outside such as silicate rich substances while Iron and nickel is left in the middle.
That is what the theory says, but I still think it slightly odd that our sun should consist mostly of the lightest elements in our solar system while
theory claims the heavier elements like iron would somehow stay in that same region... ;)
QuoteBecause the inside one rotates faster than the outside, it maintains, and prevents the outside one from switching before the inside (inside is stronger force than outside)
The earth is in motion because something set it into motion, (former explosion, then attraction and gravitational forces) but the attraction of the Sun is involved here too, then also, slowing down over time is also happening (geological time). So the Earth's inner core decides the polar swithcing, but the Sun is involved with the revolution due to the gravitational pull.
Doesn't seem to explain
why the poles need to switch. According to your story, the situation seems pretty stable and should not require any switching of the
magnetic poles at all...
QuoteNow Question: Is there a relationship between gravitational pull of planets and magnetism?
Probably. ;) :D
I think there's a link between gravity, light, and electromagnetism that has not really been discovered yet.
We're starting to head in the right direction with electrokinetic/electrogravity experiments, and with experiments
that show direct interaction between electromagnetism and light (negatively refractive metamaterials for example,
and experiments converting tiny amounts of photons in a multiple tesla magnetic field into "ghost"photons that
can penetrate walls and be undetectable untill reconverted back into normal photons in a reversed magnetic field,
that kind of thing). We've only recently begun to study "magnetic current" (official terminology: "spin current") effects.
We've recently made a metamaterial lens that can bend light around it at the right frequencies, effectively making
it invisible.
I think there's still a whole branch of electromagnetic theory left to discover, that deals with these direct interactions
between electromagnetism as we know it and light, gravity, and spacetime itself. :)
why the poles switch. Don't know WHY they need to, but the rate is actually calculated by Uranium decay rate, weakening of magnetic field rate, and there has been some other calculations and theories on this, what would explain the rates seen further down on this post, and since it's too complicated I'm not even going to try to explain that. It's all theory anyways.
A good explanation and has more defined numbers than my notes had by NASA on Pole switching can be read in:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm
"Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows. "
"Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting fluids and magnetic fields, Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a supercomputer model of Earth's interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens."
"What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, flip. Change is normal, they've learned. And no wonder. The source of the field, the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. "It's chaotic down there," notes Glatzmaier. The changes we detect on our planet's surface are a sign of that inner chaos. "
(see web site for complete note)
As far as the stars, yeah, there are all types, but I was really just wanting to talk about our sun, I don't get into Astro Physics much, although it is facinating.
From Canada Geological Survey: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/index_e.php
"The Earth's magnetic field (or geomagnetic field) is an ever-changing phenomenon that influences human activity and the natural world in a myriad of ways. The geomagnetic field changes from place to place, and on time scales ranging from seconds to decades to eons. These changes can affect health and safety, and economic well-being. The geomagnetic field, along with its associated phenomena, can both assist and degrade navigation and surveying techniques; it can impede geophysical exploration; it can disrupt electric power utilities, and pipeline operations; and it can influence modern communications systems, spacecraft, and more."
Also, the sun's solar flares can cause disturbances to the electromagnetic field on the outside. It also causes disturbances with GPS, power lines, etc. Don't tell Al Gore, he might cause a panic that we have to do something to change the heavens. ;)
I have heard that the sun has reduced solar flares over the past 8-9 years. Some think this will lead to a cooling effect vs. Global Warming. I've noticed that with increased pole switching in the past, also volcanic occurence increase, but I still don't know of any models yet that would show the relationship vs. correlation. If we had several volcanic eruptions, it causes a cooling effect, also because of the particles shielding the Earth from the sun, however, the particles are also dangerous to life and reduces growth of food and other plant life as seen in the forest tree rings in Ireland around the time of the "Little Ice Age." (circa 1400-1700's)
I don't think it's a good idea to panic, and do things that harm population (burning needed food) as a whole because it increases the uncertainty of negative impact in the future. A sane careful approach seems more reasonable, decrease use of fossil fuels by staying home when you don't need to go out, turn off lights, use cloth bags instead of plastic at the store, $1.00 at Walmart, increase efficiency of current mechanisms, consider everyone can't go out and buy a new car today anyways, but you can do things to get better gas mileage, like take care of your car, (how many don't bother to change oil, etc....) use things that aren't high needed resources for food, like sugar, apply renewable resources where capable, (Not all places can use geothermal, solar, or wind, but is useful where obtainable). I read that the change from warm to cooler water in the ocean can also be tapped for energy because of the currents it creates from the movement, but is expensive presently. Fusion has been contained by the addition of a Toroidal Magnetic field to contain plasma, but it is unstable (keep the drunks away) and still uses too much energy to maintain, so they are still working on that.
from: Encarta
"Progress in fusion research has been promising, but the development of practical systems for creating a stable fusion reaction that produces more power than it consumes will probably take decades to realize. The research is expensive, as well. However, some progress was made in the early 1990s. In 1991, for the first time ever, a significant amount of energy?about 1.7 million watts?was produced from controlled nuclear fusion at the Joint European Torus (JET) Laboratory in England. In December 1993, researchers at Princeton University used the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor to produce a controlled fusion reaction that output 5.6 million watts of power. However, both the JET and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor consumed more energy than they produced during their operation.
From: Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558960_4/Nuclear_Energy.html
If fusion energy does become practical, it offers the following advantages: (1) a limitless source of fuel, deuterium from the ocean; (2) no possibility of a reactor accident, as the amount of fuel in the system is very small; and (3) waste products much less radioactive and simpler to handle than those from fission systems"
Interesting...
Yes, that Joint European Torus project was one of the previous ones.
In the mean time the ITER has been started, that's the one most of the funding was pulled
from by member nations in order to fund their anti-terrorism security measures.
(Quote from Wiki about ITER funding: "In December 2007, the United States zeroed funding for ITER in fiscal year 2008."
Yes, that's right zeroed. Yet using food crops to produce ethanol is worth investing
billions in, as is shooting US-trained Mujahedin in some big dirt box? I don't follow that reasoning
too well... ;))
The original plan was to make that really large and actually produce electrical energy
for consumption. But that didn't fly so it became yet another very large test reactor
that might be able to produce significant output. Or it might not.
There's other plans for the so-called DEMO reactor which is to follow ITER, and the
DEMO is now planned to become that first actual fusion power plant (for which
ITER was originally intended). Tests with the JET and ITER did provide more insight into
the size and energy density needed for safe sustained fusion, so they weren't useless,
but it could have been done more efficiently.
For more info:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/international/europe/28cnd-fusion.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/international/europe/28cnd-fusion.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO)
So actually they're indeed still working on it, but they could have been quite a bit
further down the line already if our politicians would just dedicate themselves to
what is best for our collective countries instead of their own bank accounts and
private concerns.
Thanks for the update. I went into the ITER website and they have a lot of stuff for educators and students too, so I ordered it to see if it would help with my research project (even though that has taken a turn towards present fossil fuels available presently, economic and political and physiological problems in obtaining it) Some day I hope I can narrow this all down to something presentable for when I apply for my masters after I've taken the GRE. :'(
{GRE= a wigwam is to a &^%#% as a *%^$% is to a A)^%$%^ B)&%*^$ C)^TT&*TU or D)JKT^&JH pick one and hope you know GREEK } They don't have one that actually questions you on Geography or GIS.
http://www.iter.org/a/index_use_1.htm
There's a fly through animated design on the ITer project here, you can see and power point presentations on their plans and work.. I believe 2006 updates. I saw Japan, Republic of Korea, EU, USA, Russia, and China were all working on this project.
New question: If there is relationship between Sun/Earth or even Earth/Moon gravitational force and magnetic, could there be the same relationship like when you take a strong magnet against the weaker magnet and the weaker magnet always acts like the opposite pole due to stealing or borrowing (I'm not sure which it is) by the stronger that makes the weaker magnet still attract? Would that happen also between the planets and Sun, no matter what poles are facing the Sun that the strength of the SUn would always cause the planets to act like an attraction force like the magnets. Of course that considers, that I don't know which way the Sun is rotating if at all. ( I hope I made sense here) Wondering if it acted the same. \
Would that not mean there are weaker magnetic fields away from the sun where the planets are? Would the revolutions of the planets cause any magnetic field rings around the sun? or vise versa ( the sun's magnetic field is what the planets are in)? or have no effect?
What causes the sun to self sustain its fusion? Is it the chemical and physical occurance and decay only or does in involve the magnetic fields around it ( like when they put the magnetic field to contain the plasma in fusion)? And Could it actually need the solar system to maintain it or are there stars that can sustain it without a system of planets around them? Do you know?
It appears that that is going on in the (the nuclear activity) Earth that the magnetic dynamo effect helps to increase pressure and heat and contain it along with also decay rate of Uranium and I saw some information that antimatter is involved here in nuclear reaction both in sun and Earth and they made a scope that can measure neutrinos when mixed with Chlorine to make Argon or something and are working on something to measure antiprotons from space: http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR99/CENT99/abs/S6715006.html
Hope I'm not making it more complex than it is :-X
Just came across this:
"It has been known since 1983 that the star Beta Pictoris is surrounded by a disk of gas and dust. Spectra of Beta Pictoris show absorption features which are currently believed to be due to cometary like clouds of gas occultating the star from the debris left over from planetary formation. Though it's far from certain it is believed by some that planets may already have formed around Beta Pictoris.
HST has observed Beta Pictoris (right) and found the disk to be significantly thinner than previously thought. Estimates based on the Hubble image place the disk's thickness as no more than one billion miles (1600 million kilometers), or about 1/4 previous estimates from ground-based observations. The disk is tilted nearly edge-on to Earth. Because the dust has had enough time to settle into a flat plane, the disk may be older than some previous estimates. A thin disk also increases the probability that comet-sized or larger bodies have formed through accretion in the disk. Both conditions are believed to be characteristic of a hypothesized circumstellar disk around our own Sun, which was a necessary precursor to the planet-building phase of our Solar Systems, according to current theory.
More recent HST observations have shown the disk to be slightly warped as might be expected from the gravitational influence of a planet. This has been confirmed by observations at ESO.
Recent observations at radio wavelengths of a gas cloud known as Bok Globule B335 have produced images of material collapsing onto a newly born star (only about 150,000 years old). These observations are helping to understand how stars and planets form. The phenomena observed matches the theory of the formation of the solar system -- that is, a large gas cloud collapsed to form a star with an attendant circumstellar disk in which, over time, planets accreted from the matter in the disk and orbited the Sun."http://www.nineplanets.org/other.html
but there's discrepancies, it says the sun is only 4.5 billion years old??
There was some info saying the sun DID indeed rotate. Sounds like you have to have a sun for a planetery development but not vice versa. You don't necessarily need planets around the stars.
Quote from: GeoscienceStudent on May 14, 2008, 09:39:23 AM
{GRE= a wigwam is to a &^%#% as a *%^$% is to a A)^%$%^ B)&%*^$ C)^TT&*TU or D)JKT^&JH pick one and hope you know GREEK } They don't have one that actually questions you on Geography or GIS.
A wigwam is to a Greek what an Acropolis is to a Guarani indian: an incomprehensibly ugly structure. ;) Oh that wasn't in the multiple choice was it? :D nah kidding
QuoteNew question: If there is relationship between Sun/Earth or even Earth/Moon gravitational force and magnetic, could there be the same relationship like when you take a strong magnet against the weaker magnet and the weaker magnet always acts like the opposite pole due to stealing or borrowing (I'm not sure which it is) by the stronger that makes the weaker magnet still attract?
Whatwhatwhat? :o Let me look at that again...
So you are saying we compare a large and a small magnet to the sun and Earth or the Earth and the Moon? Well we know there's gravity that acts between the Sun and Earth, and there is some magnetic interation also. The large and small magnet do not compare as they are not massive enough to attract eachother gravitationally. Gravity is not magnetism, and magnetic attraction is not the same as gravitational attraction... but I guess I just don't really get your question...
If you meant to ask "does a permanent magnet with a strong enough field "overpower" the magnetic field of a smaller and weaker one that is brought into
that field", then the answer is yes. The exact effect of this stronger field "overpowering" the smaller field can vary. If the weaker magnet is a permanent magnet
with zero internal conductivity and zero ferromagnetic characteristics, then it should not demagnetise in a stronger opposing field, and it would experience
a repulsion such that the smaller magnet will "flip over" in order to align its magnetic field with the stronger one. If the smaller magnet cannot flip over (because
it is fixed somehow) there should merely be two opposed magnetic fields. If the smaller magnet is made of ferromagnetic material like iron, it can demagnetise and remagnetise due to the stronger magnetic field and also ends up with its field aligned with the stronger one (in theory).
So when the larger magnet is flipped over, the smaller magnet can either flip over too, or it can remagnetise oppositely, both ending up with the smaller magnets field aligned with that of the larger one, or it can just not flip over but then whatever keeps it fixed in place should feel a force acting on it.
Or at least, that's my 2 cents. ;)
QuoteWould that happen also between the planets and Sun, no matter what poles are facing the Sun that the strength of the SUn would always cause the planets to act like an attraction force like the magnets.
Well if I understood you correctly and the above is in any way (a start of) an answer, then I think it does matter which direction the poles are facing, but instead of them
facing the sun the poles should align with the magnetic field lines of the suns field.
QuoteOf course that considers, that I don't know which way the Sun is rotating if at all.
I though it did, or at least it seems to me that whatever was at the center of a spinning accretion disc must also spin... :)
Quote( I hope I made sense here) Wondering if it acted the same.
Well I also hope I'm making sense to you and wondering if you meant what I understood your question to be. ;)
QuoteWould that not mean there are weaker magnetic fields away from the sun where the planets are? Would the revolutions of the planets cause any magnetic field rings around the sun? or vise versa ( the sun's magnetic field is what the planets are in)? or have no effect?
As far as I know the solar magnetic and radiation fields are the strongest fields and highest energies in our solar system. Makes sense, it being a huge big
fusion reactor that only keeps running due to its own gravitational pressure... No planet can even come close to outputting that much energy. It's like comparing
a fireball to a glass marble. Obviously much more energy is produced and radiated by the fireball. ;)
So it seems unlikely that things as small as our planets can have effects on the solar magnetic field. Only Jupiter perhaps, it being massive, could have
magnetic fields strong enough to make the sun "feel" them a little. But even Jupiter doesn't compare to the sun in size and energy output...
So I think the planets all revolve in the Suns magnetic field and interact with that.
But hey, I'm not Einstein and even he made mistakes. ;) :D
QuoteWhat causes the sun to self sustain its fusion?
The sheer pressure of its own mass and the heat that produces in its core, where all these atoms are pushed together with such force that sooner or later something's got to give and they fuse? That's what I was taught and it still sounds reasonable. ;)
QuoteIs it the chemical and physical occurance and decay only or does in involve the magnetic fields around it ( like when they put the magnetic field to contain the plasma in fusion)? And Could it actually need the solar system to maintain it or are there stars that can sustain it without a system of planets around them? Do you know?
As far as I know solar fusion has little to nothing to do with chemical occurrance nor decay nor the magnetic fields around it, but with the enormous
pressure inside due to the enormous mass...
QuoteIt appears that that is going on in the (the nuclear activity) Earth that the magnetic dynamo effect helps to increase pressure and heat and contain it along with also decay rate of Uranium and I saw some information that antimatter is involved here in nuclear reaction both in sun and Earth and they made a scope that can measure neutrinos when mixed with Chlorine to make Argon or something and are working on something to measure antiprotons from space: http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR99/CENT99/abs/S6715006.html
I'm not sure why you brought up the neutrinos and antimatter, but with regard to the nuclear element my opinion is that it is nothing more than an explanation
for the fact that our planetary core is still liquid and moving: the heat trapped in there by decaying radioactive isotopes kept it hot for so long. In contrast to Mars for example, which probably did have a liquid moving core long ago but did not have as many radioactive elements in its crust/mantle/core so that cooled down
a lot faster, solidified, and gone was the martian magnetic field.
I think the main thing to keep in mind is: rotating plasma (sun) or very hot liquid iron (earth) generate a magnetic field. That's how radioactive elements in the earth contribute to the earth magnetic field.
But again, I may be wrong eh. ;) I didn't build the thing so I can't be entirely sure. :)
:D
the world was flat -
everything revolved around the earth -
man cannot fly -
if a human ran a 4 minute mile, he would die! -
the soud barrier is impossible to break-
many more
I would like to add that Centrifugal/centripital force - a fictitious force that can not be used, - will in fact be utilized and used as an energy source.
cameron
Quote from: cameron sydenham on May 16, 2008, 11:17:30 AM
many more
Hmm yeah, I always liked the claim that the steam locomotive would kill people because it was claimed
at a speed of 50 kilometers per hour people would no longer be able to breathe for their air supply would be
cut off by the speed. It was also claimed cows would die from stress after seeing such a machine thunder
past at such speeds, or if they didn't die at least their milk would become sour.
All complete nonsense of course. :)
Quote
I would like to add that Centrifugal/centripital force - a fictitious force that can not be used, - will in fact be utilized and used as an energy source.
Would you care to elaborate on that statement? What makes you think so?
that is where our motor gets its additional power from that we are almost finished rebuilding.
cam
You guys type too much for me to read haha, I'm a slow reader. I wanted to put in my two cents:
QuoteEnergy cannot be created, it is the 4th state of matter, but scientists are apparently speaking out of two sides of the mouth when they say it can't be destroyed. If it can't be destroyed, then you should be able to recapture it, recycle it, thus use it over and over and over by regenerating your battery with it.
This is the biggest contradiction that science makes! Everyone step back a moment and think about this - Energy cannot be created or destroyed..... Now really think about that a minute. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet we also have entropy (universe expanding, things become more disordered, energy spreading out into oblivion never to be harnessed again). My friends, if this were the case, if science was so correct, we would not be here, we would never have existed!
If energy cannot be created or destroyed then where did it come from? The big bang - a singularity - is what most astrophysicists will say. It takes energy for things to explode, that doesn't happen energy free! So scientists turn to the possibility of different dimensions and all kinds of bogus "fudge factors". What a load of crap! The simplest answer is the one right in front of us, ENERGY CAN BE CREATED (and probably destroyed). Nature shows us that everything has a beginning and an end. Everything we observe is created, dies, and from its remains more things are created. Thus energy too has a beginning, and an end. It takes energy to make energy. God does exist, he input the initial energy but he's lazy. God doesn't want to keep putting in energy, he made it a system that once started builds on itself. Unfortunately, we are too small to see that, and what we don't see we can't accept. Instead of blowing so much effort on ethanol and renewable fuel sources, we should be trying to find the mechanism that creates energy. I know there is one, without it we would not be here, period.
I feel there may be a misconception at play here.
Obviously, if you consider the Big Bang to be an explosion of matter and energy from
one specific point in space and time, then indeed the energy must have been concentrated
in that point in space and time before it exploded. The "bubble" of matter and energy
spreading out from that point in space and time would gain size and decrease in concentration.
But I think you're forgetting that there was no space nor time before the Big Bang.
At least, as far as I know, the Big Bang is not just an explosion of matter and energy inside
space and time, but it is the actual coming into existance of everything, including matter and energy
and space and time simulataneously.
There was no point in space and time where all matter and energy were concentrated before it exploded.
There was nothing, and that's not even true because there was no "was". ;)
At that superbly mysterious moment of birth of the universe that we so laughably call "Big Bang",
the quantumfluctuation that many scientists now believe the universe is, somehow started to
"unravel" its entangled dimensions and at the same time gave rise to space, time, energy, and matter.
We can't even be sure that "time" as we experience it is really anything like the "true" way this entire
multidimensional construct works. As string theory suggests, we probably live in a world that we experience
as a defined set of dimensions, and take a great many dimensions that we cannot directly observe independantly
for granted, consider them theoretical, nonexistant, infinitely small, or simply don't even realise they are here.
"The arrow of time" for example, seems to be very one-way for us humans. But if you rework our "three dimensional"
spacetime into a more abstract construct of a 4-dimensional sphere and try to imagine models that can account
for physical phenomena in our world, certain things seem to make much more sense. It is possible to model such
a "spacetime" where time is not at all a "one-way arrow" but rather a circular dimension, and everything in our
everyday world would still work out exactly the same for people living in our 'dimensional plane'...
So how can we make clear statements about what happens to energy in the universe, if we use a crooked view
of "the universe" to begin with?
Just a grab out of my thought box. ;)
Quotecoming into existance of everything, including matter and energy
and space and time simulataneously.
No, not a misconception, energy and matter "cannot be created or destroyed" says the law of conservation of matter and energy. Thus by that definition, it cannot "come into existence", it must have already been here by that definition. A contradiction at the heart of scientific theory. So if we take it from the law's standpoint, there was no big bang, everything was already here way before that occurred. If then we look at the second law of thermodynamics, stating that entropy of a system is ever increasing, we realize that our universe (which is far older than the big bang, since by the governing laws could never have happened) should of been at a state of equilibrium long ago. We should not be here according to these laws.
The easiest explanation is usually what is right in front of you. That is energy CAN be created and that entropy is ever increasing yet so is the energy creation. Thus our universe is already in an equilibrium, a perpetual equilibrium. We should look for the mechanism that creates this energy.
Well it seems to me there is a contradiction in your analysis...
After all, if everything including time, space, matter and energy did not exist before the BB, then there was no place for everything to be in,
there was no time for anything to be in, and there was no matter that could perform the act of being, as any of those require the elements
time, space, and matter.
Yes, if you assume there was a setting of time ans space, then obviously matter cannot have magically appeared inside that system.
But there was no such system. The whole system including space, time, matter and energy just came from not existing to existing.
There was not an emptyness that suddenly got filled. There was a fully filled system that was not in existence, and then it came into
existence fully filled. That's what the Big Bang says. It does not say there was a lot of empty space and time and all of a sudden there
was matter and energy. It says there was no time, no space, no matter, no energy. And yes, that is impossible to intelligently make claims about,
as in our everyday worlds it is totally impossible for time and space not to exist and cone into the equation. We're like fish talking about
what the moon could be like without the ability to grasp the concept of vacuum. ;)
But let me ask you, how do you see the law of entropy as valid if there is continuous creation of matter?
And where is this matter created then? Do you, beside the reasoning you have shown, have any reason to
conclude matter is continually created?
And why do you feel our universe should have been at a state of balance long ago? What reasons do you have to
conclude this?
I see no reason to conclude this... Entropy is clearly present, universal expansion too, slow cooling of the universe
as well, so what is the anomaly that makes you question the standard interpretation? I don't see the anomaly.
QuoteAfter all, if everything including time, space, matter and energy did not exist before the BB, then there was no place for everything to be in,
there was no time for anything to be in, and there was no matter that could perform the act of being, as any of those require the elements
time, space, and matter.
QuoteThe whole system including space, time, matter and energy just came from not existing to existing.
So universes just spontaneously "come into existence"? And it must not need any source to happen, it just manifests itself like herpes :o !
QuoteBut let me ask you, how do you see the law of entropy as valid if there is continuous creation of matter?
And where is this matter created then? Do you, beside the reasoning you have shown, have any reason to
conclude matter is continually created?
And why do you feel our universe should have been at a state of balance long ago? What reasons do you have to
conclude this?
Well, I'm not sure I have enough weed to answer these questions, but I'll try. I'm just kidding, I don't really smoke the marijuana. It is not good to do.
Now firstly, I didn't say there was a continuous creation of matter, I said energy can be created - whether or not that energy takes the form of matter I don't know. I would think it would lean more toward coming out as electromagnetic fields, whether these be radiation (aka light) or just the fields themselves (90 degrees out of phase, also known as non-radiating light or standing waves) I don't know.
As for entropy, this is basically the randomizing of an ordered state. If there was no way to "re-order" things, then there would be no reason for space, time, matter, and energy (matter and energy being the same thing) to ever exist. Because, like it or not, something must be ordered first, before it can return to disorder. The creation of the universe by whatever means (being a big bang or whatever) is basically an anti-entropy phenomenon. Thus, there MUST be a counter to entropy - everything in nature has a counterpart - surely entropy must too or we would not be here.
To me, the answer to the counter-entropy is the creation of energy. I'm still working on this part, but if energy is being created (aka the universe is re-ordering itself somewhere) entropy is trying to destroy that order. I have a theory. If two force fields of the same type (two gravity fields, two magnetic fields, etc.) are placed in proper geometry 90 degrees spatially apart from one another, and balance is maintained, they can influence outside bodies without the outside bodies influencing them. They basically become independent of, yet can still influence, outside forces.
There is a restriction to the types of fields one can use. The field must radiate outward and return to itself - this really narrows it down! Electric fields only flow in one direction, gravity fields only flow in one direction, nuclear forces possibly only flow in one direction (not really sure about nuclear forces). The only force that radiates outward yet returns to itself is a magnetic field. The internal direction of flux is opposite from the external direction - all other force fields go in a single direction both internally and externally.
Its still really early, and I don't like talking about things that are only partially done, but I have been able to setup an arrangement of magnets where the prime mover is mostly unaffected by external magnetic fields (only in a very specific region though). It produces a 260 Gauss change when spinning the prime mover.
QuoteEntropy is clearly present, universal expansion too, slow cooling of the universe
as well, so what is the anomaly that makes you question the standard interpretation? I don't see the anomaly.
The problem with the expanding universe is that just because the sky glows at 160GHz (aka the background radiation) does not mean it is not glowing at other frequencies. In fact, if you look up at the sky with an X-ray telescope, you'll see that it glows at X-ray frequencies as well. It just so happens that 160GHz was close enough to be picked up by radio antennas in the 50's and people jumped on it as "the proof" of the big bang. It is also unfortunate that Nasa did alot of infrared spectroscopy on stars and also discovered this 160GHz signal as a red shift (things getting more red as they extend outward). I wonder if you used an X-ray or gamma-ray detector if those far out galaxy spectra would still look red shifted - I bet they wouldn't.... I bet they would be blue shifted....
If we all had one ore, and paddled our canoes on the left side, great men would claim canoes can only go in circles, and laws would be written. Damned to any who tried to use 2 ores, or alternated sides!
Holy crap that was a long post. Sorry for the length, it won't happen again!!!
Quote from: Charlie_V on May 20, 2008, 11:34:21 PM
So universes just spontaneously "come into existence"? And it must not need any source to happen, it just manifests itself like herpes :o !
Rofl like herpes hehehe :D
But seriously, yes, that seems to be the most accepted cosmological view: for some totally unknown reason the universe with everything that it
involves, including time, space, energy and matter, just sort of "popped" out of a situation where it was not present... As to whether or not it needs
a source, I don't think there are any good answers to that question as the entire concept of even time and space not being here is so terribly
unintuitive and unnatural to us that we can't really say anything about the higher dimensional physics that might be involved without diving head-first
into the realm of pure speculation.
It's a bit like some applied studies in relativistic physics, those can already become quite confusing and "feel" very unnatural when for example two
objects at large speed difference experience a different rate of time; and that's in a situation where time and space still do hold, and already it
feels unintuitive and unnatural.
And hey, it may indeed be that there is something amiss in the theory and in fact there never was a phase where time and space and everything in them
did not exist. But that will need some good explanations to account for the redshift etc. ;)
QuoteWell, I'm not sure I have enough weed to answer these questions, but I'll try. I'm just kidding, I don't really smoke the marijuana. It is not good to do.
Yeah you're better off eating it. ;) ;D
QuoteNow firstly, I didn't say there was a continuous creation of matter, I said energy can be created - whether or not that energy takes the form of matter I don't know. I would think it would lean more toward coming out as electromagnetic fields, whether these be radiation (aka light) or just the fields themselves (90 degrees out of phase, also known as non-radiating light or standing waves) I don't know.
ok sorry, I turned it into matter. My mistake.
QuoteAs for entropy, this is basically the randomizing of an ordered state. If there was no way to "re-order" things, then there would be no reason for space, time, matter, and energy (matter and energy being the same thing) to ever exist. Because, like it or not, something must be ordered first, before it can return to disorder. The creation of the universe by whatever means (being a big bang or whatever) is basically an anti-entropy phenomenon. Thus, there MUST be a counter to entropy - everything in nature has a counterpart - surely entropy must too or we would not be here.
Well that depends on your interpretation a bit, I think. Entropy is indeed often said to be the increase of disorder in a system. Another way to look at it is as
an increase of freedom in the system: the parts of the system gain more freedom to go their own way, instead of remaining rigidly in check. Diffusion of gases
for example is pure entropy: the atoms move away from eachother untill the ultimate degree of free movement is obtained. In most cases there is indeed some
form of ordering and/or concentration and/or compression present in a system and entropy causes that to dissipate, decreasing order, increasing freedom of movement.
Perhaps it would be usefull to use a story one of my physics teachers used to illustrate how entropy does not contradict our existence:
Our human bodies undergo entropy all the time. Since we start out quite small, it seems illogical that we can actually gain any mass or energy by expending
the little energy we are born with. After all, the energy contained in our bodies at birth is very little compared to that contained in them at death. It would seem
there is a negative entropy taking place during life. What happens is that we
consume matter in a low entropic state, and we allow entropy to increase
its entropic state, thereby basically giving our entropy increase to the food, which experiences more entropy than it would otherwise in the same period of time,
and thus we gain valuable time. We're "cheating" entropy by quickly giving it to our food, thereby allowing our own low entropy state to persist.
Now that sounds good for biological systems, but it also applies to physical systems of energy and matter exchange.
Of course that does not eliminate your main question of where this original low entropy state of the universe came from.
It's a good question and I don't think there's a good answer for it at present.
QuoteTo me, the answer to the counter-entropy is the creation of energy. I'm still working on this part, but if energy is being created (aka the universe is re-ordering itself somewhere) entropy is trying to destroy that order. I have a theory. If two force fields of the same type (two gravity fields, two magnetic fields, etc.) are placed in proper geometry 90 degrees spatially apart from one another, and balance is maintained, they can influence outside bodies without the outside bodies influencing them. They basically become independent of, yet can still influence, outside forces.
and how does that add energy that was not there before, in your view? After all, and if I understand correctly, you're saying that two identical type force fields at a 90 degree angle can exchange energy with other fields without exchanging energy
with those fields? What energy is being exchanged then, if the energy in the original 2 fields does not decrease?
QuoteThere is a restriction to the types of fields one can use. The field must radiate outward and return to itself - this really narrows it down! Electric fields only flow in one direction, gravity fields only flow in one direction, nuclear forces possibly only flow in one direction (not really sure about nuclear forces). The only force that radiates outward yet returns to itself is a magnetic field.
I'm afraid that is not true. In open vacuum (space) pure electrical fields have a similar form as magnetic fields. If you make a wire loop and have current flow through it, it will generate a magnetic field which has an opposite orientation inside the loop to that outside the loop, and these "fold" at the "poles" to form the magnetic field you're talking about. Same thing the other way around: if you make a looped magnetic field, you'll see a similarly
shaped electric field with opposite orientation inside and outside the loop, which "folds" at the "poles".
QuoteThe internal direction of flux is opposite from the external direction - all other force fields go in a single direction both internally and externally.
See above. Also, if you look at the electric field lines of a capacitor, you should see that these do not only run straight from the one plate through the dielectric
layer to the next plate, but also from the one plate in opposite direction, then 'fold', run along the outside, and into the next plate from the opposite direction as well.
Just to show that the electric fields in a two-plate capacitor also run both directions at each plate, and not merely in one direction.
QuoteIts still really early, and I don't like talking about things that are only partially done, but I have been able to setup an arrangement of magnets where the prime mover is mostly unaffected by external magnetic fields (only in a very specific region though). It produces a 260 Gauss change when spinning the prime mover.
Interesting :) A prime mover? That's a nice old concept I haven't heard much lately. :)
QuoteThe problem with the expanding universe is that just because the sky glows at 160GHz (aka the background radiation) does not mean it is not glowing at other frequencies. In fact, if you look up at the sky with an X-ray telescope, you'll see that it glows at X-ray frequencies as well. It just so happens that 160GHz was close enough to be picked up by radio antennas in the 50's and people jumped on it as "the proof" of the big bang. It is also unfortunate that Nasa did alot of infrared spectroscopy on stars and also discovered this 160GHz signal as a red shift (things getting more red as they extend outward). I wonder if you used an X-ray or gamma-ray detector if those far out galaxy spectra would still look red shifted - I bet they wouldn't.... I bet they would be blue shifted....
Well if we are to believe our professional stargazers there is a seriously unbalanced situation where we clearly see more red shift than blue shift.
The red shift, by the way, does not mean all radiation we observe must be at a specific frequency. It's about the frequency
shift. So we look at stars and
measure their frequencies, and what we see is that over the years the light of most of the stars we can see has shifted slightly toward the red end of the spectrum.
So stars emitting higher frequencies (lets say blue for example) still emit higher frequencies, but the frequency is just a tiny bit lower (a tiny bit less blue).
And in fact there are a very small number of blue shifted stars in the sky. It is hypothesised that they are moving toward us in the galactic disc.
But then again, that's just what most of our cosmologists think at the moment, and untill we've actually studied a number of other start up close
I don't think we can really say much more than that we currently like to think there's a red shift. ;)
And even if there is, there are a number of possible models for our universe and some seem to indicate the entire arrow of time is a subjective thing,
and in fact the system did not originate magically from nothing to expand and die a horrible cold death as the arrow of time progresses, but
instead it may be a closed loop of which we can only experience one "side" or "direction". I've read some pretty convincing theories in that area.
One of such views basically suggests there is a simultaneous BigBang+expansion and contraction+GnabGib going on, it is just us poor monkeys
bound to our limited 3 dimensions and unidirectional time arrow that can't see it because it falls outside of our ability to observe. In such a situation,
we would see exactly what we see: an expanding redshifted universe.
Really, cosmology is the business of coming up with far-out explanations for things that we don't really understand anyway. And using billion dollar
equipment to do so, and act really cocky about it. ;) ;D
QuoteIf we all had one ore, and paddled our canoes on the left side, great men would claim canoes can only go in circles, and laws would be written. Damned to any who tried to use 2 ores, or alternated sides!
Lol :D nice one
"If we all had one ore, and paddled our canoes on the left side, great men would claim canoes can only go in circles, and laws would be written. D----d to any who tried to use 2 ores, or alternated sides! "
Or even worse, if someone used an engine. :P
I'm finding this discussion interesting, but where in this entropy/anti-entropy does matter/antimatter fall in? Or is it basically in the same idea?
And doesn't the BB theory involve that eventually the universe goes back to a non-dimensional state then start all over again? I was under the impression that it keeps going back and forth, like a circle in phases.
By the way, Koen, I got the CD from ITER and it was interesting to see we (USA) had pulled our support last century but got back involved in it in 2003. We should never have pulled out. It looks promising. There's even movies in the CD showing the plasma moving within the JET and some other systems they've had. They are using each phase and applying former ones with further technology, and it's getting better each time. It stated that the half-life of the waste products is so low that within a 100 years, we would not have to worry about the storage (better than present waste products of fission) and it puts out only a small amount of kg of helium a year compared to millions of CO2 wastes from gas and petroleum. Also basically you need water (dueterium)and lithium (triterium...sorry if I mispelled them) for making of the fuel so we have plenty for years to come. I don't understand why the US would pull out of this study. Because you have to continually feed it fuel to have fusion, there is no danger of accident like in fission where there are chain reactions after the reactions of split atoms. Then there is the waste problem with fission.
If anyone is interested in this CD you can e-mail a request to
To: Hay Jennifer <Jennifer.Hay@iter.org>
There is something interesting about electromagnetic fields and how it holds the plasma within the field which keeps it from moving outward or hitting the sides and cooling down so it maintains its heat and energy. 8)
Beck
PS. The CD is made simple enough for dummies like me to understand. ;D
Quote from: GeoscienceStudent on May 21, 2008, 09:42:22 AM
I'm finding this discussion interesting, but where in this entropy/anti-entropy does matter/antimatter fall in? Or is it basically in the same idea?
Well the entropy point made by Charlie is basically that the coming into existence of the universe including all the matter and energy in it, seems
to contradict the "law" of conservation of energy (and matter). Since energy (and matter) cannot be destroyed (or created) according to that "law",
that in itself contradicts the universe coming into existence from nothing.
Entropy comes into play as the increse of disorder in the system, in other words the expansion of the universe and the dispersal of the energy and matter
in the universe over its volume. Logically there must have been a situation with much less disorder where everything was more concentrated. But where
did that situation come from and how could it have been, if entropy is always present? The ultimate point of origin should have been a perfectly ordered
and very concentrated situation, but how can such a situation arise if entropy is always in action?
So basically it's two ways of looking at the same contradiction. I think. ;)
QuoteAnd doesn't the BB theory involve that eventually the universe goes back to a non-dimensional state then start all over again? I was under the impression that it keeps going back and forth, like a circle in phases.
Well yes, that's one of the views. I think this is what is often referred to as the "Big Bounce" theory:
the universe is in a cycle of expansion and contraction and keeps doing so. There's no proof for it, but there's also no proof against it. There's a number of these possible views. It's mostly speculative. It's a lot like debating what type of cheese the moon is made of. ;)
QuoteBy the way, Koen, I got the CD from ITER and it was interesting to see we (USA) had pulled our support last century but got back involved in it in 2003. We should never have pulled out. It looks promising. There's even movies in the CD showing the plasma moving within the JET and some other systems they've had. They are using each phase and applying former ones with further technology, and it's getting better each time. It stated that the half-life of the waste products is so low that within a 100 years, we would not have to worry about the storage (better than present waste products of fission) and it puts out only a small amount of kg of helium a year compared to millions of CO2 wastes from gas and petroleum. Also basically you need water (dueterium)and lithium (triterium...sorry if I mispelled them) for making of the fuel so we have plenty for years to come. I don't understand why the US would pull out of this study. Because you have to continually feed it fuel to have fusion, there is no danger of accident like in fission where there are chain reactions after the reactions of split atoms. Then there is the waste problem with fission.
Good of you to actually order the CD :)
Cool stuff eh, that fusion? ;)
I just want to add that recent developments in the nuclear fission field have also given us some other interesting possibilities.
It just happens that in recent years research has been done on liquid metal nuclear reactor technology. This is a slightly
different form of fission technology then the "classic" reactors. Very high temperature liquid metals such as liquid sodium
are used as heat exchange medium, and well it's too much to type here but basically what happens is the radioactive material
is completely worked down to non-radioactive atoms, all radioactivity is converted into heat, and this is turned into usable
energy using classical methods. Advantages: no nuclear waste, higher output, and as extra bonus we can use existing nuclear
waste
as fuel. Disadvantages: uses extremely high temp sodium and you don't want to think about what happens if that
comes into contact with water or oxygen, it still needs transport of radioacive material to it as fuel, and it is only experimental
so even with heavy funding it will take about 20 years at least before a first version is active.
And if you're going to have to fund it for 20 years before anything can come of it, you're just as well off funding a fusion plant. :)
QuoteThere is something interesting about electromagnetic fields and how it holds the plasma within the field which keeps it from moving outward or hitting the sides and cooling down so it maintains its heat and energy. 8)
tokamak plasma containment you mean? Yeah, that's pretty nifty. :)
QuoteQuote
QuoteThere is a restriction to the types of fields one can use. The field must radiate outward and return to itself - this really narrows it down! Electric fields only flow in one direction, gravity fields only flow in one direction, nuclear forces possibly only flow in one direction (not really sure about nuclear forces). The only force that radiates outward yet returns to itself is a magnetic field.
I'm afraid that is not true. In open vacuum (space) pure electrical fields have a similar form as magnetic fields. If you make a wire loop and have current flow through it, it will generate a magnetic field which has an opposite orientation inside the loop to that outside the loop, and these "fold" at the "poles" to form the magnetic field you're talking about. Same thing the other way around: if you make a looped magnetic field, you'll see a similarly
shaped electric field with opposite orientation inside and outside the loop, which "folds" at the "poles".
Actually, the field in a capacitor only goes in a single direction - although they do loop like you said, it is still in the same direction. Let me draw you the difference.
QuoteWell if we are to believe our professional stargazers there is a seriously unbalanced situation where we clearly see more red shift than blue shift.
The red shift, by the way, does not mean all radiation we observe must be at a specific frequency.
I wonder if it is red shifted in all frequency bands. They typically only do infrared spectroscopy on stars because that light band yields information on what type of material the stars are made out of. It would be interesting to see if they have done visible, UV, and maybe X-ray spectroscopy on the stars and see if they still observe a red shift. I know they take X-ray images of space but that isn't spectroscopy. An IR image would just show the sky glowing red (since the red shift gets more severe as you get further from the earth). The sky glows with X-rays too, and other frequencies. I'm just wondering if the spectrums are also red shifted.
I forgot to add the polarity to the capacitor - like it really matters haha. The top plate of the capacitor is positively charged, the bottom plate is negative. The figure on the left is the capacitor, the two figures on the right are magnets (each in a different configuration).
I came to this conclusion when I was experimenting with homopolar motors. If you take a cylinder magnet and place half of it in an iron tube, and the iron tube's thickness is much wider than the magnet's diameter, you can get the assembly to spin different directions depending on where you apply the contact. If you apply the contact to the surface of the magnet it will spin in one direction. If you apply that same contact to the iron, it will spin in the opposite direction. This is because the flux through the iron (aka the magnet's external field) is in a different direction from that of the magnet (which when applied to the surface of the magnet utilizes the internal field).
Electric fields only travel in one direction, from positive to negative. Yes they loop (and I suppose on the very top they would be in opposite directions) but as it loops around (at the perpendicular point of the dipole) the direction is the same. At the perpendicular of the magnet, the fields on the outside are reverse of the inside... Pretty interesting huh? Makes it almost like the field radiates out one end of the magnet, but returns. Where as electric fields only radiate away, never to return (by this i mean a positive charge does not have any positive charge return to itself). Now, if they ever discover a magnetic monopole (which I don't think exists) then things would be different. But I believe it is the magnet's nature to reach out and touch everything before it returns to itself - they are nature's molesters :D!
Also,
Quoteand how does that add energy that was not there before, in your view? After all, and if I understand correctly, you're saying that two identical type force fields at a 90 degree angle can exchange energy with other fields without exchanging energy
with those fields? What energy is being exchanged then, if the energy in the original 2 fields does not decrease?
What 'm saying is that the fields at 90 degree angles become like an energy amplifier. They boost the energy (or create additional energy) by consuming very little. They use some energy to produce movement between themselves, and the effects their movement produces are seen greater on outside bodies. Yet the outside bodies cannot effect their fields. It takes energy to make energy - which is why I also believe in a divine being.
260 Gauss of flux change can move a magnet back and forth through the movement of the prime mover. But moving that magnet back and forth will not cause the prime mover to move. The prime mover is independent of the magnet but the magnet is dependent on the prime mover. Only that is a simplified example, because the geometry of the device is screwy, and the movement of that magnet is not anything that would be easily harnessed. I'm going to make it a generator and place a coil in the region. So the back torque of the coil will not affect the prime mover, yet the prime mover will drive the coil. The device I built is rather small, the coils and magnets are too small and it will not power itself. If things keep looking up, I will build a larger device where the coils' parameters are enough to drive a motor which powers the prime mover. The motor will not see any back torque from the coil and will run basically with no load. These are my goals anyway, only time will tell if it goes anywhere - theres still plenty of room for failure. But so far, the independence of the prime mover to outside forces (in the special region) is very exciting! I'm sorry I cannot/will not divulge anymore information than what I have presented.
Best Regards,
Charlie
Sorry Charlie, don't have enough time to go into your prime mover idea
in detail right now, but thanks for the explanation. I must read and think
it over a bit before I reply to that. Seems like you've done a few interesting
experiments with homopolar motors. I've done a few years ago as well,
it seems you're thinking along the same lines I was back then... :)
As to your drawing of the field lines, yes, that seems to be right.
And yes, if you draw it like that, the field lines outside the capacitor
have the same 'orientation' as those inside. But if you look at the plates,
you'll see that both plates see the lines outside the cap oriented oppositely
to the lines inside the cap.
In magnets the field line situation is different, you are right about that.
In a magnet, the field lines inside the magnet are oriented oppositely to
those outside of it. But if you look at the poles, you'll see that both poles
see the lines outside the magnet and those inside of it as having the
same 'orientation'.
In both situations the fields "fold in on themselves".
But at least now I get what you meant. ;)
QuoteAs to your drawing of the field lines, yes, that seems to be right.
And yes, if you draw it like that, the field lines outside the capacitor
have the same 'orientation' as those inside. But if you look at the plates,
you'll see that both plates see the lines outside the cap oriented oppositely
to the lines inside the cap.
In magnets the field line situation is different, you are right about that.
In a magnet, the field lines inside the magnet are oriented oppositely to
those outside of it. But if you look at the poles, you'll see that both poles
see the lines outside the magnet and those inside of it as having the
same 'orientation'.
In both situations the fields "fold in on themselves".
But at least now I get what you meant. Wink
I'm so confused hahaha. Can you draw me a picture of what you mean, when you get time? I drew the standardized direction of flux. From positive to negative (in the capacitor) and flux leaving the north pole (for the magnet). Just looking at the plate (and I didn't draw all the flux lines) the flux is leaving in all directions, at the negative the flux is entering in all directions. For the magnet, if you could slice a small sliver from the top, the flux is leaving on one side, but is entering on the back side (because a magnet does not have a monopole, you can't get flux leaving from all directions). Inside the magnet the flux is always in a direction opposite.
For an experiment with the capacitor, charge two plates up with high voltage (8kV or so). Have a metal ball suspended on a string dangling in the middle of the two plates. The ball will become electrostatically charged. It will attract to the plate it is closest too. When it touches the plates, it will become fully charged with the same polarity and will repelled toward the other plate. The ball will bounce back and forth between the plates. When the ball is charged, the field lines emit in all directions, just like the plates. It will repel and attract to both plates, this is because the field lines, despite the polarity, are always in the same direction, either leaving or entering - they never return to the same object, in magnets the fields do. If you tried this experiment with two magnets and a steel ball. The ball would just stick to the side of whichever magnet it was closest to, and that would be the end of it.
Really, what I'm talking about isn't as great as I'm making it out to be. I'm just trying to point out how the slight differences in the way a magnetic object has both flux entering and leaving, where as an electric object will only have one type, either entering or leaving.
To me it appears as though the magnetic flux reaches out to the corners of the universe, comes in contact with everything and returns to that SAME object. An electric field reaches out across the entire universe too, but it returns to a DIFFERENT object. I'm probably talking out my ass though.
Sorry for rambling and over explaining, I have a tendency to do that. :-\
Koen:
Go to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ATP.PNG
Look up shale oil retorting. There are statements that retorting is still low efficiency and the reason we switched to sweet oil (petroleum) is because of cost, efficiency, and quality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_extraction
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033
Now is it possible to apply a magnetic field using a similar principle as like in fusion (the donut shape toroidal magnetic field) somehow around the part that heats up the shale to increase the efficiency and heat? Or is this too small to apply such a mechanism that would be effective?
Or would it even be effective since we are not using plasma? (Seems like that would be extreme since you only have to go 500-700 degrees Celcius in retorting)
It would seem if you can use magnets in some motors, or even some alternators, or even brakes (though I heard the brakes had to be recalled) that you could apply some principle here to increase your efficiency; however, I can't tell if they already do or not.
There is still the environmental issue, though...they are trying to make the drilling smaller to decrease the release of emissions escaping.
Beck
Sorry for the couple of days silence. ;)
On the electric field, I'll make a drawing soon if I have time.
It's nothing spectacular, it's just like your magnetic field line
drawing.
On the oil shale thing: Are you suggesting we use magnetic compression
to work oil shale up to high grade petrol product?
Interesting idea, but I don't really see how you propose to apply it
to the process of shale refining...
And it is a fallback to fossil fuels, which I thought we wanted to move away from...
Personally I would prefer to do away with fossil fuel combustion entirely,
so I do not perceive novel methods of refining oil to be a significant step
forward in energy technology.
After all, we know that continued large scale combustion of fossil fuels
will only serve to increase our already skyhigh CO2 levels and increase global
warming, increasing climate extremes, and generally perceived to be of
great threat to civilisation.
We also know how to do just about everything we can do with fossil fuels by
using other means; we can run our cars and engines on electricity, we don't
really need any combustion engines. They were usefull when oil was still dirt
cheap and came bubbling up out of the deserts almost by itself, but over the
decades the price of what is essentially a free material buried in the earth
has risen so much that it is simply no longer the cheap and easy fuel.
We can make lots of electricity by fission, geothermal, and solar processes,
and we're very close with fusion and direct extraction of electricity from the
ionic difference between salt and sweet water.
Let's focus on generating electricity. Let's forget about petrol. Electrical
energy has almost all the advantages of combustion fuels, without most
of the disadvantages.
Why opt for a diesel stove that fills your house with exhaust fumes and
micro dust particles and stench, if you can use an electrical stove? ;)
Quote from: Charlie_V on May 21, 2008, 11:26:28 AM
Actually, the field in a capacitor only goes in a single direction - although they do loop like you said, it is still in the same direction. Let me draw you the difference.
Hi,
Your drawings are true, but could you please, if you have time, show the flux lines of two cylindrical magnets in close proximity and in attraction?
I have a post under "magnet motors", and I really need to know how the fields change when seeing an opposite charge. Thanks in advance if you have the time, otherwise, np.
Dact
Koen:
Even with new tech., everyone can't just change over in a day. It will take time to buy new cars all over the world that uses the newer technology, so we still need oil. With present dollar being worthless, and people are struggling now and possibly we will get a huge tax hike, I sure can't go out and buy a new car. I'm still paying for my school loan for my first 2 degrees, office management and nursing,[working on my 3rd] my house, two teenagers and their big appetites and their future college, medical payments, etc. (I've heard the truckers are planning a strike because of the deisel prices, so stock up) Also, other things are made from petroleum besides gasoline: plastics, medicines, lubricants to name a few. So we still need it. According to 2001-2005 statistics, we have enough oil to last about 40 years...but that doesn't take into account loss, increase of use (China increased theirs by 6 x over the last ten years), exponential population increase and demand, (US uses a little more than 25% world's energy consumption by 4.6% of the world's population, just to show how glutonous and developed countries work) increased demand due to developing countries, burning of some fields by people like Sadam Hussein, oil spills, etc. Then of course, you can't extract every little bit out. So maybe about 10 years would be more like it...Oh...at the grocery store, to save a tree...paper or plastic? I made mine cloth. ;D [Walmart cloth bags made in...China]
In situ retorting of oil shale is what I'm looking at. Shell oil company can now extract the oil from Kerogen under ground by drilling and obtain shale oil for about $30.00 per barrel. (their latest claims I read) They drill down, cool down the shale first, then heat it up, in an environment without oxygen, causing it to release hydrocarbons, then condense the hydrocarbons. Now this "oil" is poor quality and can settle with particles in it making it hard to refine, so they add a salinized solution to prevent that. But it still has some carcinogenic particles that can be released during the refining process. They still can't get all the "oil" out so it's still not efficient enough. Too much waste, but it's getting better around 25-75%..and I've seen some numbers even in the 90 percentile. And it uses a lot of energy...that's why I'm wondering about some kind of magnetic field to contain the heat but it depends on what kind of heat this magnetic force will contain.. I can't imagine using exactely what fusion does,(plasma seems too extreme) but can you use it for other "heating" methods? To increase the heat and pressure, and reduce the energy required to feed it?
China, Estonia, and Bolivia use this.(oil shale for petroleum) We used to. The first one started in Auton, France in the 1850's and several countries used shale oil before they discovered petroleum. (Pumping of oil began 1859. ) However that's just for major shale oil amounts. Europe actually used the shale for burning long before that. They used to just dig up the shale (not really the true name, the rock, I think it's Marl, but don't quote me on that, but it's Kerogen is the organic substance the oil comes from) and retort it, but the in situ (They heat it up under ground) process is promising. It's still not high quality yet and still not efficient. about 25-75%. It can yeild about 10-140 gallons of oil per ton of rock processed. Tar Sands is another that produces oil. Just for a thought, wind energy is about 35% efficiency on its best days depends on size of windmill rotors, and where it is, etc. and I've seen some renewable resources efficiency at 15%, according to some of my research (numbers could vary depending on sources).
Hope I'm not rambling too much. I keep going back and adding sentences. ::)
We are going to go back to studying it this fall, fossil fuels (the geologist that lead the research in the 1970's is my teacher and he decided we need to look at it again due to the WHOLE story of what is going on in the world) and believe it or not, (regardless of what the presidential candidates claim) the government is in a full throttle force in working on this. We have, after all, 60% of the world's oil shale, 1/3 of it is in the Green River Basin in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. There is already people obtaining this oil now.
( You may have seen something on the news about complaints of environmental problems in Colorado lately due to science research...?)
You see, we need a "cushion" to get us through while trying to move to other options, and to continue making the plastic products. There is a plant in the rain forest that can make plastic, (the plant is being grown on purpose for this now, but I don't know where) but there is also decreasing rain forest due to slash and burn for crops. This soil is so full of aluminum, and leeched out so bad, that the ground is only good for 3-5 years tops, then they move to another place. The governments of many of these countries also take the choice lands to grow products to pay the high interest rates to the World Bank for loans so the people move out to the forest to survive. In Africa I saw the government made a deal with a company to mine for gold and threw the people out, and in another they took the forest away from the Baka (promising education in its stead, but now they're in danger of starving) to sell the trees...The World Bank did work on a project to give other options, like offer rice subsidies...but you try to live on rice only.. oh and be a diabetic..don't forget beri-beri...a nervous disorder that leads to death due to lack of certain vitamins that comes from protein rich food (niacin I think)..not found in white rice. * Baka are known as "pigmies" in either Camaroon or Congo, I can't remember which, to Westerners.
Now let's not forget the garbage thrown into the oceans...plastics end up in sea gull's mouths causing their stomachs to bloat and they starve...while reducing the oceans ability to absorb CO2... the increase of population, thus increasing CO2 while alive, methane gas while dead,(and of course they desire a car, after all, don't you...personally I'm for mass transport but it's not offered here, and the population here is not excited about using trains and buses) the decrease of forests for also wood, which is causing deserfication increase in Africa, not to mention South America's is rapidly disappearing, decreasing CO2 absorption, the less ellipticle revolution of the Earth around the Sun, increasing heat, but Scientist now say the Sun decreased solar flares over the past 8-9 years which would decrease heat, plankton in the ocean puts out more CO2 than the total population in the world, but let's kill all the whales because they eat plankton, and to add the probability factor of uncertainty... It would take over a hundred years to make a difference if we stopped putting out emissions according to most of the reports I've read from several groups including the Copenhagen Concensus, and UN. And those you see on National Geographic and Discovery channels and Weather channel. Only Al Gore ( and what is called the "alarmnists") says we'll all end up under the Ocean in 20 yearswhile the group in charge of monitoring the Earth temp changes are disagreeing (for which they were called a few choice names by the "alarmnists") At least he showed most of the land under water, though scientists say there is not enough to totally cover all land and ice in the Artic is already displacing the water so it would not cause it to rise if it melted , only that on land melting would make a difference like Greenland, and Antarctic and there is arguments that the Antartic is getting colder yet ice is breaking off but I've yet to see the actual temperatures measured but we can magically change the heavens by only a few developed countries already in mass debt making changes in emission reductions. Hmm...so if I change my tire on my car, then the water pump, alternator, power steering, brakes, belts, batteries, transmission, and everything else broke on it will just automatically fix itself? The Global Warming issue is a system of issues and it's very complicated. Do some real research on it and see what you come up with. Don't forget to look up under water river currents, and our geological history..coming off the Little Ice Age,,theories of why we had it.. We've had similar climate issues in the early 1900's as now, it has been hotter than this before...etc , etc, etc... And scientist all over can not come up with an agreeable model,, but Al Gore the genious by a degree in? law? Perhaps under water basket weaving science? Is going to be genious mad scientist and recreate the world..then celestial choirs will come down, and roses will appear in every garden... we'll have a chicken in every pot, no one will be hungry, or have sorrow, or tears, no more sickness, no more wars, Solar Monkeys made from Carbon developed during fusion of the sun due to the Miller/Urley experiment will appear and give everyone a magic banana, Osama Bin Laden will turn into Apostle Paul and preach the gospel, and you will win the lottery and never work again.. keep dreaming. Maybe the last might happen. ;)
Oh, and China is drilling offshore in the Atlantic Ocean with Cuba..the heck with our Environmental issues, and Russia is fighting for the offshore drilling in the Artic...do you really think we'll make a difference? Several African countries have been drilling to obtain money for oil, after all, their governments (See Nigeria..in National Geographic) want to be able to sit on solid gold seats in their mansions and pay off the national debt while the US continues to add to their debt.
Do you see people staying home? Buying less gas? turning off the lights and televisions? Walking? How many recycle plastics? Hospitals can't. They incinerate them because of the possible infectious quality of them. Can a few people make a difference when other countries are in a race to become the world leaders? Turn over your plastic whatever you have and look at where it was made. What percentage of it says "Made in China?" Where did that plastic come from? Fusion? Fission? Hydrology? Solar? No....Petroleum. Now look around your house....How much plastic do you have... Building materials...furniture...your keyboard...dishes...toys...pens...radio, tv, handles on your fridge, oven, microwave, dishwasher. Your ketchup bottle, what you put your leftovers in..etc.
The probability of ....uncertainty.
It is estimated that 5 volcanoes going off at the same time (not necessarily exact same time ) could lower the Earth's temperature 5 degrees Celcius, an ice age. Several are being watched right now...one in the Cascades, Indonesia...Composite types, not shield types like in Hawaii...That blow particles in the air that is caught in wind currents blocking the sun and putting harmful gases and particles in the air that can kill animals and humans but usually dissipate within a year or so.
Now think about it... we've raised our temp about 0.6 degrees Celcius to 1.0 degrees (depending on source) mainly in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 100 years and it made this much difference. What would happen if we reduced the temp 5 degrees? How much food can you grow? What did the tree rings do in Ireland during 1400's to 1700's? What happens during La Nina in the equator, or just a little away from it like Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya? (Is why there is 2008 drought and famine now but fossils in Ethiopia show there used to be tropical rain forest and lower elevation but the plataeu is rising, so theory is that is why the consistent poor rain situation now, not global warming, though some argue it's global warming. They do get orographic rains in West side of Ethiopia though goes to near the mid-country) You need the heat for convection to create the Hadley cells. Less heat = less rain in that territory. BUT...There are difference issues when you are in monsoon areas, or west coast or orographic rain from mountains, etc. You also need the foilage from forests because they put out alot of water, too, so cut down the trees and???
Guess I'll quit rambling now. ;D
PS Can you count the "science claims" contradictions in this post (including with what you may have heard against some of these claims)? :o
Ahem.....just clear my throat.... ;D
Here are some quotes I like to read......
-------------------------------
Lord Kelvin drew attention to the general tendency in nature towards dissipation of mechanical energy, a fact borne out in daily observation of thermo-dynamic and dynamo-thermic processes and one of ominous significance. It meant that the driving force of the universe was steadily decreasing and that ultimately all of its motive energy will be exhausted none remaining available for mechanical work. In the macro-cosmos, with its countless conception, this process might require billion of years for its consummation; but in the infinitesimal worlds of the micro-cosmos it must have been quickly completed. Such being the case then, according to an experimental findings and deductions of positive science, any material substance (cooled down to the absolute zero of temperature) should be devoid of an internal movement and energy, so to speak, dead.
This idea of the great philosopher, who later honored me with his friendship, had a fascinating effect on my mind and in meditating over it I was struck by the thought that if there is energy within the substance it can only come from without. This truth was so manifest to me that I expressed it in the following axiom: "There is no energy in matter except that absorbed from the medium." Lord Kelvin gave us a picture of a dying universe, of a clockwork wound up and running down, inevitably doomed to come to a full stop in the far, far off future. It was a gloomy view incompatible with artistic, scientific and mechanical sense. I asked myself again and again, was there not some force winding up the clock as it runs down? The axiom I had formulated gave me a clue. If all energy is supplied to matter from without then this all important function must be performed by the medium. Yes--but how?
When radio-active rays were discovered their investigators believed them to be due to liberation of atomic energy in the form of waves. This being impossible in the light of the preceding I concluded that they were produced by some external disturbance and composed of electrified particles. My theory was not seriously taken although it appeared simple and plausible. Suppose that bullets are fired against a wall. Where a missile strikes the material is crushed and spatters in all directions radial from the place of impact In this example it is perfectly clear that the energy of the flying pieces can only be derived from that of the bullets. But in manifestation of radio-activity no such proof could be advanced and it was, therefore, of the first importance to demonstrate experimentally the existence of this miraculous disturbance in the medium. I was rewarded in these efforts with quick success largely because of the efficient method I adopted which consisted in deriving from a great mass of air, ionized by the disturbance, a current, storing its energy in a condenser and discharging the same through an indicating device.
Light and heat rays are absorbed in their passage through a medium in a certain proportion to its density. The ether, although the most tenuous of all substances, is no exception to this rule. Its density has been first estimated by Lord Kelvin and conformably to his finding a column of one square centimeter cross section and of a length such that light, traveling at a rate of three hundred thousands kilometers per second, would require one year to traverse it, should weigh 4.8 grams.........Nikola Tesla......
---------------------------------------------------------
Rays: When I reduce the material from which comes out the alpha, beta and gamma rays, so small when it is magnified one hundred times and appearing the same size as an average salt crystal, then there is no more rays, but has flashes the same as when a connected wire end is tapped on the battery's terminal, but without the red sparks. Depending on the size sometimes, I have to wait five minutes before I can see a flash.
The natural path to the North pole magnets in the Northern Hemisphere is to go down, and the South pole magnets to go up. I think it would be a good idea if the physicists while testing radium on the photographic film for alpha rays, would put the radium on top of the film, and for beta rays the radium under the film, and then watch the results, or go to the Southern Hemisphere and experiment in the some way as they are doing now, and then notice if there is an difference. The gamma rays must be the same as the sun light, but stronger because they are used very close to their source.
We have North and South pole magnets, positive and negative electricity, protons, and electrons, positrons and mesons and alpha, beta and gamma rays. Now why such a confusion? Does nature really need so many things in the perpetual transformation of things, on building up the matter and again taking it into parts? I think all that nature needs is three things, the North and South pole magnets and the neutral particles.
The Thomson electrons are very small parts of matter which come out of the cathode while the cathode is burned up or consumed in the vacuum tube.
Without the general circulation of the building blocks there would be no change. Everything would remain in the same way as it is now. The building blocks from a matter that go to pieces could not get in the general circulation for the new construction.
I think the Radium and Uranium were built up inside the earth with high pressure, and heat, while the North and South pole individual magnets were circulating through the earth. During the time the Radium and Uranium were inside the earth they absorbed more of the individual North and South pole magnets than they normally could hold, and so now while they are on top of the earth they let the magnets go so they can become normal again.
Gravitation must be caused by the matter in the middle of the earth, and more concentrated than Uranium. When Uranium atoms burst they release the North and South pole individual magnets that held the atom together, then the magnets scatter all around, but when the atoms burst in the middle of the earth, and many burst at the same time, they can only run from the middle to the outside. When the North and South pole magnets are running alongside each other and in the same direction, they have no attraction for the other kind. They only attract if they are running one kind against the other kind. When the magnets are running out of the middle of the earth, as soon as they meet an object they attract it, on account of the fact that in any object there is both kinds of magnets in it.
The invention of an electron came by a tricky method in using electricity in a vacuum tube. Normally whether it be a generator or a battery, the positive terminal will have to be connected to the negative terminal, but in the vacuum tube two batteries with different strength were used, the smaller battery was connected normally, but the larger battery's negative terminal was connected to the smaller battery's negative terminal, and the positive terminal was left alone. That connection gave the negative terminal a double dose of strength, and so it became hotter and could push more. It was called cathode and the positive terminal anode, and the electricity that passed from the cathode to the anode was called electrons.
The Thomson electrons are very small parts of matter which come out of the cathode while the cathode is burned up or consumed in the vacuum tube..........EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN....leedskalnin.net
-----------------------------
Scotty
Here is something else for the curious.....
The radio waves are made by the North and South pole magnets. They spread around the earth, and the North and South pole. Magnets that are coming down from the sun are hitting the radio waves across, and so disturbing their paths. That is the reason why we cannot hear the radio as well in the day time as we do at night. At night time we only get those magnets that are coming down from other suns or stars, but in the day time we get them all.
Radio waves are not waves; they are North and South pole individual magnets which are coming out
of a transformer of the secondary winding?s coil ends, one-half going up in the air and the other half
in the ground in increasing and decreasing numbers. The numbers are regulated by the transmitting tube, and the speed by voltage. The increasing and decreasing magnet numbers cause the receiver?s antenna to generate a tiny current to start the amplification to reproduce the original broadcast. The magnets are not running up to the ionosphere and down again, but are running horizontally until they are lost.
Those magnets which go up to the ionosphere never come back as radio to the receiver, they only
cause the ionosphere?s magnets to come back to Earth as radar waves. Magnets do not run in the way the radio wave drawings show......Ed Leedskalnin....
------------------------------------------
The actions at a distance cannot be proportionate to the height of the antenna and the current in the same. I shall endeavor to make this clear by reference to diagram in Fig. 14. The elevated terminal charged to a high potential induces an equal and opposite charge in the earth
In Fig. 13 a transmitter is shown radiating space waves of considerable frequency. It is generally believed that these waves pass along the earth's surface and thus affect the receivers. I can hardly think of anything more improbable than this "gliding wave" theory and the conception of the "guided wireless" which are contrary to all laws of action and reaction. Why should these disturbances cling to a conductor where they are counteracted by induced currents, when they can propagate in all other directions unimpeded? The fact is that the radiations of the transmitter passing along the earth's surface are soon extinguished, the height of, the inactive zone indicated in the diagram, being some function of the wave length, the bulk of the waves traversing freely the atmosphere. Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.....
The same conclusions will be reached by transmitting and receiving circuits with wires buried underground. In each case the actions carefully investigated will be found to be due to earth currents. Numerous other proofs might be cited which can be easily verified. So for example oscillations of low frequency are ever so much more effective in the transmission which is inconsistent with the prevailing idea. My observations in 1900 and the recent transmissions of signals to very great distances are another emphatic disproval........Nikola Tesla.....THE TRUE WIRELESS.
---------------------------------------------------
The writer asked Mr Rogers just how he came to form the idea of the "Underground and Subsea Radio". He explained that from his very first study of the method of transmitting radio signals by means of an elevated antenna, the question constantly presented itself to his mind --- "If 50 units of power are past into the aerial, then what becomes of the equal amount of energy which passes into the ground". To Mr Rogers?s mind it was more reasonable to suppose that the energy liberated at the base of an aerial was propagated through the earth as well as through the ether above, and that an elevated aerial, at great distance, would be actuated by them as effectually as if the waves reached the same point through the ether above; when the waves through the earth reached the base of the aerial the potential of the plate would be raised and lowered and the aerial would accordingly be energized.
First, that the electrical energy liberated at the base of an antenna will be propagated through the earth even in the absence of etheric space waves above, if such a condition were possible, and which in reality does occur when great distances are signaled over, so he believes. Second, that the propagation of earth waves no more depend upon the ether waves above the surface than these etheric waves depend upon the earth waves. Further, that both waves are propagated simultaneously, one above and another below the surface of the earth, and that at the initial start each is dependent upon the other, although thereafter neither is dependent upon the other. Furthermore, Mr Rogers believes that the ether waves gradually die out in intensity in proportion to the earth?s curvature, and the distance over which they are propagated, and that at great distances the ether space waves do not have any appreciable effect upon receiving appliances, and that these are energized solely by the energy transmitted through the earth.
One of the Naval experts present mentioned that it had been found that the penetration of the ground wave component increases with an increase in wavelength. This is an important fact and helps to explain the operation of this new radio system, with its aerials buried in the ground. He also mentioned that "Radio to Mars" or other planets would be impossible, if we are to believe in the well-known "Heaviside" ionization layer.........http://www.rexresearch.com/rogers/1rogers.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/rogers/1rogers.htm)
--------------------------------------------------------
"Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect. It certainly would be unfortunate if the human race were thus imprisoned and forever without power to reach out into the depths of space. " NIKOLA TESLA 1919....
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Scotty: It's surprising how many people come rocking up wih Leedskalin inspired remarks,
but when push comes to shove there doesn't seem to be anybody who has managed to
build a working device based on Leedskalins stories of "north" and "south pole magnets" in
electricity...
To me his entire story sounds like a version of the concept that is currently known as
"spin current", basically the realisation that electron spin is a form of magnetism and
moving electrons thus carry a form of magnetic polarisation. Of course we already knew
that, for the observation that a circular magnetic field surrounds a moving electron shows
this already, as did the Hall-effect. Recently the quantum-Hall-effect proof has given us
an even clearer view of this situation, and oppositely spin polarised electrons separate
into two distinct currents under the influence of the magnetic field induced in the conductor
by one "normal" current of electrons.
Although that seems to give some credibility to Leedskalins stories, it is obvious Leedskalin
used a theoretical model in which the elements of magnetic and electric field "orientation"
were taken to be the crucial elements and the concept of electrons was not adopted
exactly as the scientific establishment sees them; this is why Leedskalin can easily
jump from current to magnetic monopoles in his story, without the problems that established
scientific "dogma" would immediately bring up, such as the theoretical impossibility and
absence of any observation of the magnetic monopole (according to generally accepted view).
We know that, if we had monopoles, we could do all kinds of things that current scientific
"dogma" says are impossible. It is no coincidence that many OU/FE researchers have
mentioned the concept; according to a fairly straighforward interpretation (as described above),
it might be possible to create them and they should indeed generate some "asymmetry" that
should allow for actions that cannot take place if monopoles are not possible.
So in my opinion, even though the entire concept of the monopole is a fascinating idea and
exercise in mental modeling and insight, and even though it may very well be worth experimenting
with different interpretations of monopole theory, the Leedskalin stories are interesting but
not nearly clear enough to get the message he is apparently trying to convey. I find his style
of writing about the subject quite vague and his terminology not always clear and sometimes plain
confusing. He may have had a great mental picture of what he was trying to convey, but
I feel he doesn't really get the message across very clearly, and it does not lead to practical or
usefull insights as to how the theory he tries to explain can be applied in real life.
Otherwise I am not entirely sure what you intended to say, so I'll leave it at this...
Perhaps you can be a bit more direct in adressing the matter you want to bring to
our attention? Just say what you mean, instead of a collection of quotes?
@GeoscienceStudent:
Quote from: GeoscienceStudent on May 25, 2008, 08:34:20 PM
Koen:
Even with new tech., everyone can't just change over in a day. It will take time to buy new cars all over the world that uses the newer technology, so we still need oil. With present dollar being worthless, and people are struggling now and possibly we will get a huge tax hike, I sure can't go out and buy a new car. I'm still paying for my school loan for my first 2 degrees, office management and nursing,[working on my 3rd] my house, two teenagers and their big appetites and their future college, medical payments, etc. (I've heard the truckers are planning a strike because of the deisel prices, so stock up) Also, other things are made from petroleum besides gasoline: plastics, medicines, lubricants to name a few. So we still need it. According to 2001-2005 statistics, we have enough oil to last about 40 years...but that doesn't take into account loss, increase of use (China increased theirs by 6 x over the last ten years), exponential population increase and demand, (US uses a little more than 25% world's energy consumption by 4.6% of the world's population, just to show how glutonous and developed countries work) increased demand due to developing countries, burning of some fields by people like Sadam Hussein, oil spills, etc. Then of course, you can't extract every little bit out. So maybe about 10 years would be more like it...Oh...at the grocery store, to save a tree...paper or plastic? I made mine cloth. ;D [Walmart cloth bags made in...China]
Lol ok ok I'm not saying "stop using petrochemically based products NOW!" ;)
But I am saying we should strive to move from petrochemical combustion fuels for personal and commercial transportation to electrical power, because
we have much more means of producing the latter than the former, and quite a few of them do not have the ecological disadvantages of oil.
And yes, of course things are getting more expensive...
But on the other hand, the petrol prices in the States are still quite a bit lower than they are over here in the Netherlands, and have been at almost
a third or less of our prices for about a decade and a half... Seems to me that the US has actually been getting very cheap fuel for quite some
time, and now that the price goes up to a more realistic level all of a sudden the US people discover how expensive life was in most of the world
during those decades... The rest of the world, you know those 95% of the world population that had to make do with 25% of all produced energy,
already knew that. That's why there's such a huge "anti-globalisation" movement in the world. Nobody is actually opposed to "globalisation" in the
sense that the world gets smaller due to better communication lines, internet, better and more infrastructure, or global trade. What all of those
people are opposed to is the "take what you can and screw the rest" attitude of most multinational companies, and this very crooked balance
where a minority of the world population basically consumes the majority of fuels and goods, while the majority of the world population is
left to suffer poverty and starvation.
Now don't get me wrong here, I am not saying "we", as in "the West" should stop trying to live a comfortable life, or should stop using energy...
But I am saying that we could actively work towards a situation where more of the world population has the same quality of life and basic
necesseties, such as not just food, shelter, and medical aid, but also a peacfull place to live, and a certain minimum level of comfort.
And we could make sure there's enough energy to go around and to power a large number of water desalination and filtration plants,
and large scale semi-automated food production powered largely by this energy. This way the prerequisites for any world region to
actually develop into an economically active and relatively self-sufficient region could easily be met, and a great many of the worlds
problems would disappear, as most of the worlds problems can be traced down to scarcity of certain basic goods or services.
That should also help decrease animosity in the world as regions don't necessarily have to compete with eachother over basic
resources such as food and energy. Ok, I'm finished with the treehugging hippie speech, you can open your ears back up now. ;)
Yes, as a realtively cost effective temporary solution shale refining ("retorting") is an option. But preferably we should stop
burning fossil fuel. For plastics petrochemicals are still usefull, and perhaps we should only use them for plastics...
Although we can already make plastic-like polymers from organic molecules too. I seem to recall the only real reason
petrochemical polymers were originally adopted was the extremely low cost of the crude oil...
QuoteThe probability of ....uncertainty.
It is estimated that 5 volcanoes going off at the same time (not necessarily exact same time ) could lower the Earth's temperature 5 degrees Celcius, an ice age. Several are being watched right now...one in the Cascades, Indonesia...Composite types, not shield types like in Hawaii...That blow particles in the air that is caught in wind currents blocking the sun and putting harmful gases and particles in the air that can kill animals and humans but usually dissipate within a year or so.
Now think about it... we've raised our temp about 0.6 degrees Celcius to 1.0 degrees (depending on source) mainly in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 100 years and it made this much difference. What would happen if we reduced the temp 5 degrees? How much food can you grow? What did the tree rings do in Ireland during 1400's to 1700's? What happens during La Nina in the equator, or just a little away from it like Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya? (Is why there is 2008 drought and famine now but fossils in Ethiopia show there used to be tropical rain forest and lower elevation but the plataeu is rising, so theory is that is why the consistent poor rain situation now, not global warming, though some argue it's global warming. They do get orographic rains in West side of Ethiopia though goes to near the mid-country) You need the heat for convection to create the Hadley cells. Less heat = less rain in that territory. BUT...There are difference issues when you are in monsoon areas, or west coast or orographic rain from mountains, etc. You also need the foilage from forests because they put out alot of water, too, so cut down the trees and???
Sorry, your point is? That there is too much incertainty to conclude global warming is our own doing? Or too much to conclude global warming is necessarily bad?
That there are several theories on climate change and they don't all accord and don't all support the global warming is evil plot?
Well of course there is a huge amount of uncertainty. But in the mean time governments around the world are increasing "eco" taxes, increasing air fuel taxes,
increasing anti global warming campaigns, stimulating people to use less energy and water "because of the climate change problem", wasting their valuable agricultural land on biodiesel crops that realistically don't contribute to the "fight against climate change" at all, etcetera etcetera, and in most countries the anti-climate change and
anti global warming ideology is used to play the population like puppets, use the populations fear of the system of society breaking down due to large ecological
disasters such as famine, tornados, tsunamis etc to consolidate the power base of the ruling regimes and industial-military complex.
It's the same old technique and it still works: make the people afraid, make them believe you are keeping them and their way of life safe and secure, then coerece
the people into slavery by painting a picture of even greater hardship if they don't listen. Machiavelli couldn't have done it better. ;)
I guess the main problem is the same as it has always been: most people in positions of power are there because they want power, and not because they want
the best for the people. And most people who elect the people in power are too naive to consider that when the time comes to vote.
QuoteGuess I'll quit rambling now. ;D
Lol ok, then I'll stop rambling too. :D
QuotePS Can you count the "science claims" contradictions in this post (including with what you may have heard against some of these claims)? :o
Sorry, are you asking me to list them for you or was it just for laughs?
@CharlieV: Here is the pic of the field lines thing I promised.
Legend:
A1) shows a normal electrostatic capacitor. As you can see, there is only one
plate with positive and negative charge, and the field lines always run from
the positive to the negative. That indeed does mean that the field lines outside
the capacitor run parallel to those inside if you look at it the way you drew them,
but also that the field lines per plate run oppositely (as I drew the one line there).
A capacitor only stores the charge that was put in.
A2) shows a battery as an electrical charge source. As you can see, there are two
processed going on in a battery. The internal process is a chemical reaction that
causes electrons to accumulate on one "pole" and makes sure these charges cannot
easily flow back through the internal medium. So they have to go through the external
medium. In a way there are two seperate fields at work: the internal electrochemical
reaction, and the external electromagnetics.
A battery actually produces and absorbs charges from the external medium, it is an
active process taking place. Not electrostatic, electrodynamic.
B2) now shows a normal magnet as a flux source. The field lines run identical to those of a battery,
except that they are of course now B-field lines and not A-field lines.
Again, an active process, where the magnetic material causes the internal flux, and
this causes the external flux. So basically a "flux battery" if you like...
B1) shows the magnetic equivalent of a capacitor, a flux storage device.
These do not exist in reality. That's why the "flux capacitor" often occurs in sci-fi stories and
movies (like Back to the Future etc).
If they did exist, they should show a similar field geometry as an electrical capacitor has.
That's my view. Sort of. ;)
So yes, you are right that the field geometry and orientation of a capacitor and a magnet
are different, but it seems to me that you forgot to take into account that a magnet and
a capacitor are not actually equivalent. A magnet is much more like a battery than it is
like a capacitor, and the field lines of a magnet are similar or identical to those of a battery.
I hope this clarifies the fairly vague statements I made on the subject before.
;) :)
QuoteSo yes, you are right that the field geometry and orientation of a capacitor and a magnet
are different, but it seems to me that you forgot to take into account that a magnet and
a capacitor are not actually equivalent. A magnet is much more like a battery than it is
like a capacitor, and the field lines of a magnet are similar or identical to those of a battery.
Well not exactly. Check these websites out (both wikipedia).
Magnetic Field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solenoid.svg
Electric Field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electric_dipole_field_lines.svg
They have a good picture, I couldn't post them here because of the 50KB limit. These show the differences between the electric and magnetic field very well. They are using a coil instead of permanent magnet, but the permanent magnet will be the same.
A battery is like a capacitor except the the charge is being generated chemically. You are correct that there is an electric field on the inside that goes in the opposite direction of the outside field. However it is a double layer, the E-field in the opposite direction is way smaller in magnitude than the electric fields at the double boundry layer of the metals. These are in the same direction as the outside E-Field. The E-field configuration of a magnet is slightly different from a capacitor, but it is still totally different from a magnet (since the magnet's field makes a circle - check out the websites.) I drew all the fields inside a battery. Again, from the electrodes' perspective, the internal E-field is the same as that of the outside.
Dude, read what I wrote again and you will see
that what I say is exactly what the battery drawing also
shows, and what those websites say.
;)
On the flux capacitor thing, I think I may have put the "N" and "S"
in the wrong places...
The entire point is that a battery is not at all a capacitor, because of
the active region between the "poles" where the "free electrons" are
originally generated by galvanic reaction.
A capacitor does not have such an active region, it only has passive field lines.
Similarly a magnet cannot be compared to a capacitor, but is much more
like a battery, because it also has an active region between the "poles" there
the "flux" is generated (by the magnetic material).
A magnetic equivalent of a capacitor as in a component that stores flux,
even though one does not exist in reality, should theoretically also lack
such an active region and only have passive field lines.
In both the magnet and the battery the field lines have a similar or identical
pattern, and so do they in both the electric and the magnetic capacitor.
Please. Trust me. :)
I'm beginning to think we should rename this post to "Student Tutoring"
@ Keon1,
QuoteA magnetic equivalent of a capacitor as in a component that stores flux,
even though one does not exist in reality, should theoretically also lack
such an active region and only have passive field lines.
Isn't that what a coil does? It stores a magnetic field like a capacitor? What would you consider an electret material - a material that holds a permanent electric field. They don't usually last as long as a magnet, but they can last 20 years or so. Electrets are found in microphones.
Just throwing that out there,
Charlie
Keon...Ed's work is completely simple to understand....How anyone cannot understand is beyond my understanding!!
All of the things you are talking about right now and drawings pics of....I have already fully examined and tested with practical models......
It makes me piss myself laughing to hear you talk about your beloved electron......
By the way....monopoles (if the exist) are in constant motion...running one kind against the other kind, they are not just sitting around waiting for Paul Dirac to come along.
Keon...Do you know why the scientists NEEDED the + 1/2 and - 1/2 spins of the electron?
They NEEDED IT....THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT THEORY.
Before I had even studied the 1/2 spins I made a prediction using Ed's theory....and my prediction was correct.....except that when the scientists did the test, they came to the 1/2 spin conclusion.
I don't have any physics education....i'm an engineering woodworker (Patternmaker)....maybe that is why I can see the errors......
If I knew about physics then i suppose i could make a motor using Ed's notes...but so far i have not, and maybe I never will, so that is why I am writing everything into a larger volume.
Then...if someone who knows about physics reads it....he might see the application where i could not....I'm trained to copy from instructions...not so good at innovation.
That is not to say that I don't have designs, or am not building, which I am....but i have that feeling that i'm missing something that i should be seeing. (which annoys me)
When Ed's work is applied to science...then science never had the electron.....the results of J.J. Thompson would be differernt....and then the results from the 1/2 spin experiments would be different too....in fact they would not even need to be done, as the results are easily predicted using Ed's notes.
Physics says that I can take an electron out of a valence shell/band? and that empty space behaves as a positive charge and can attract another electron?
If i roll hundreds of golf balls accross the green...one may go in the hole....but the hole never attracted anything...Maybe that is how Tiger does it?
The scientists can show an electron cloud, and say that somewhre in there the electron might be...but if the electron moves away... the space left behind is called a pos charge.?
In other papers the electron is only one of 3 quarks?
In the newest theory (CPH theory)...everything is made of CPH and the electron is not of much importance.
The scientists don't like a monopole particle idea because of the magnetic vector potentiol A...and on and on it goes..... it's everywhere.
--------------------------------------
The reason why the scientists NEEDED the electron 1/2 spins is found in the chemistry books.
I don't think we can ever see the individual N and S pole magnets...they are far too small.
For a moment...lets say light was a particle...then the individual N and S pole magnets would be far smaller still......smaller than every known thing.....the Higgs Boson maybe... ;)
After 5 years of research, I have not found any solid reason against Ed's work.....but I have used Ed's work to explain many things not clearly explained by science......and if I can do it anybody can.
This weekend I will try to do an experiment for Charlie V.....I'll make it so that you can see everything as clearly as i can......
If it works the way i think then i'll put it on you tube....
Scotty.....
Quote from: scotty1 on May 28, 2008, 07:18:05 AM
Keon...Ed's work is completely simple to understand....How anyone cannot understand is beyond my understanding!!
It's not a matter of it not being simple enough. It's a matter of it being
too simple.
Now it's been a while since I last read the Leedskalin stuff, but I do not recall any clear practical implementation of his
claim that current consists of "north" and "south" "pole magnets". I also do not see you present any.
In any case, if you understand so well what Leedskalin was doing, then perhaps you can enlighten us as to the method
he used to lift the huge stone blocks and how he used a simple car battery to do so?
I quiver in anticipation of this great revelation. :)
QuoteAll of the things you are talking about right now and drawings pics of....I have already fully examined and tested with practical models......
It makes me piss myself laughing to hear you talk about your beloved electron......
Really? Why? Doesn't seem very sanitary... ;)
QuoteBy the way....monopoles (if the exist) are in constant motion...running one kind against the other kind, they are not just sitting around waiting for Paul Dirac to come along.
Keon...Do you know why the scientists NEEDED the + 1/2 and - 1/2 spins of the electron?
They NEEDED IT....THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT THEORY.
Before I had even studied the 1/2 spins I made a prediction using Ed's theory....and my prediction was correct.....except that when the scientists did the test, they came to the 1/2 spin conclusion.
Well then why don't you tell us why they needed it so badly, if you feel you are so great and know what "the scientists"
do not? And why do you believe they are wrong?
QuoteI don't have any physics education....i'm an engineering woodworker (Patternmaker)....maybe that is why I can see the errors......
Rofl yeah right. Or maybe that's why you don't get why Leedskalins stuff doesn't make sense? David Hamel was also a carpenter instead of
someone with a physics background, and he spent years building a magnet-powered UFO (that didn't fly)... ;)
In any case, it seems to me that a person first telling me he pisses himself while reading what I say about electrons, suggests he knows it better,
only to continue to say that he doesn't have any physics background is the real joke.
If you feel you have a better understanding of the thing, then you can try to explain it so we get it too.
But you only seem to be saying "haha you don't get it omg it's so simple" while not explaining one bit.
That may serve to make you feel better about yourself, but it does not contribute anything to the discussion.
Point out where you think I'm wrong and please explain to me why exactly?
QuoteIf I knew about physics then i suppose i could make a motor using Ed's notes...but so far i have not, and maybe I never will, so that is why I am writing everything into a larger volume.
Ah so what you're saying is "haha you don't get it omg it's so simple,
but nevertheless I can't come up with any practical applications myself"?
Jeez man...
So you wet yourself because you think you understand Leedskalins story, but in the mean time you can't come up with implementations?
What the hell are you laughing at then?
QuoteThen...if someone who knows about physics reads it....he might see the application where i could not....I'm trained to copy from instructions...not so good at innovation.
That is not to say that I don't have designs, or am not building, which I am....but i have that feeling that i'm missing something that i should be seeing. (which annoys me)
Sorry but I just have to grin here...
So first you laugh at me for saying that I do not find Leedskalins stuff clear enough to work out any devices besed on it,
and then you admit that you feel you're missing something? ;D hehe
QuoteWhen Ed's work is applied to science...then science never had the electron.....the results of J.J. Thompson would be differernt....and then the results from the 1/2 spin experiments would be different too....in fact they would not even need to be done, as the results are easily predicted using Ed's notes.
Ok now can you please just elaborate on that a little bit? Please explain exactly what you mean by this statement? Why would there be no electron,
how would the Thompson results be different, etc? This is the interesting part. :)
QuotePhysics says that I can take an electron out of a valence shell/band? and that empty space behaves as a positive charge and can attract another electron?
If i roll hundreds of golf balls accross the green...one may go in the hole....but the hole never attracted anything...Maybe that is how Tiger does it?
Ah of course, because everyone knows golf balls carry a charge opposite to that of the hole, right? ??? That doesn't make much sense, man...
QuoteThe scientists can show an electron cloud, and say that somewhre in there the electron might be...but if the electron moves away... the space left behind is called a pos charge.?
Sort of... your question seems to come down to the matter: are charges absolute or relative? Well from what we have
seen so far they are both. ;) Charge changes can only occur in minima of
quanta, units of 1 quant. Relative differences in charge give rise to a
subjectivescale in which we call the highest relative charge concentration "the negative charge" and the lowest charge concentration "the positive charge".
There's no black and white there.
Is that perhaps the problem you run into? That in our subjective world we use relative differences instead of absolute distinction when talking about charges?
That the situation is in fact a great big palette of shades of grey, instead of clear black and white 'particles' or 'charges'?
QuoteIn other papers the electron is only one of 3 quarks?
Pardon? The electron is never one quark. Impossible.
QuoteIn the newest theory (CPH theory)...everything is made of CPH and the electron is not of much importance.
The scientists don't like a monopole particle idea because of the magnetic vector potentiol A...and on and on it goes..... it's everywhere.
What do you mean to say here? You seem to be saying "scientists don't like the monopole particle because of the A field" and that does not
make sense. Scientists don't like monopoles because they are impossible to build from dipolar fields, and all fields we can make and think we
understand are dipolar. Not because they don't like the A field. And what do you mean with "on and on it goes, it's everywhere"??
Quote
The reason why the scientists NEEDED the electron 1/2 spins is found in the chemistry books.
While you seem to find it very intriguing and important, you still haven't told us what is wrong with
that view, in your opinion.
QuoteI don't think we can ever see the individual N and S pole magnets...they are far too small.
And I don't think we can ever see individual N and S pole magnets because
they don't exist.
After all, magnetism
needs two "poles" to "run between". If one of the poles is not there, the other
is not there either. It is impossible to split the S pole from the N pole, because of the nature of the
magnetic field. I'm going to use an analogy of tiny arrows to represent these tiny magnets;
It is not a matter of a lot of tiny "S" arrows and a lot of tiny "N" arrows hooking up
to form a field, it is a matter of a lot of tiny arrows that do not have any "S" or "N" distinction that
align to form the field.
And that is also why, if you break a permanent magnet in two, you are left with two permanent
magnets that both have a "S" and "N" pole, instead of being left with one "S pole" and one "N pole" magnet.
QuoteAfter 5 years of research, I have not found any solid reason against Ed's work.....but I have used Ed's work to explain many things not clearly explained by science......and if I can do it anybody can.
Well, then I invite you to please present your Leedskalin explanations to some of these things that cannot be explained by science.
I would really like to see that. I wonder if it is really a matter of being able to explain things science cannot explain, or if it is rather just
a way of looking at things that can shed a different light on things...?
In any case, I have not found Leedskalins stories very helpfull in that respect at all, and I would like to see how they are
helpfull that way in your view. There is always a chance I just overlooked something that you did not overlook. :)
QuoteThis weekend I will try to do an experiment for Charlie V.....I'll make it so that you can see everything as clearly as i can......
If it works the way i think then i'll put it on you tube....
Well that sounds interesting. Please do. Can't wait to find out what it is. :)
Quote from: Charlie_V on May 27, 2008, 09:49:54 PM
@ Keon1,
Isn't that what a coil does? It stores a magnetic field like a capacitor?
Nope. A coil
generates a magnetic field when current is fed to it, and it can "intercept" a magnetic field and
induce a current in the wire
that way. But it does not "hold" the flux inside to release it at some later point in time. A capacitor does do this: you feed some charge
to the one plate and take some off the other, and as long as you keep the plates isolated they will hold that charge until you connect
them via a conductor again. Magnetic flux is different, it is not like charge that can be accumulated and dissipated on a conductor.
You cannot "split" magnetic flux into a "positive" and a "negative" "flux charge" and hold them on a magnetically isolated material
until you reconnect the opposing "flux charges" with a ferromagnetic "flux conductor". Flux is not a flow of some sort of "charge"
from a high to a low concentration, like electrical charge is. Flux is a
spin field, current is a
flow of charge. Different.
And that's why a flux capacitor is impossible: there are no opposing "flux charges" that can be stored.
Or at least, that is the generally accepted view. ;)
QuoteWhat would you consider an electret material - a material that holds a permanent electric field.
Yes good one.
Actually, the electret is the electrical version of the magnet. The battery is slightly different in its operating principle and
in that it generates an actual electrical current, a continuous forceful flow of electrical charge between the poles...
So yeah, ok, you got me there. ;) Mea culpa mea culpa I did not include that in my story while I should have I guess. :)
QuoteA coil generates a magnetic field when current is fed to it, and it can "intercept" a magnetic field and induce a current in the wire that way.
This is true, but the generation of the magnetic field is actually a form of energy storage - just like a capacitor. A capacitor can like-wise intercept an electric field and induce charge in nearby conductors (aka electrostatic induction).
QuoteBut it does not "hold" the flux inside to release it at some later point in time.
This is not so true. The flux can be maintained, or "held", as long as current is flowing. The energy stored in the flux of the coil is not utilized by any load in the electrical system. This flux can then be released when the current is stopped. The magnetic field collapses, generating a flow of current which a load can then consume. A capacitor stores stationary charge, a coil stores moving charge. They are both energy storage devices, a mechanical equivalent for a capacitor and coil would be a spring and flywheel, respectively. The spring stores stationary (or potential) energy, the flywheel stores moving (or kinetic) energy.
Haven't you ever seen that experiment where they have a light bulb in parallel with an inductor? Here's a website that demonstrates it:
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/backemf/index.html
I was trying to point out the way the field lines interact with the environment in a magnet vs a capacitor. They are both lines of force, but they are not the same, since an electric flux will not repel or attract to a magnetic flux. Magnetic flux creates a loop, on the outside of the magnet or coil, the flux travels north to south, on the inside of the magnet or coil, the flux travels south to north (the reverse). Charged conductors' electric flux travel in a single direction - they do not create a closed circular path. This is why the divergence of the B field is equal to zero in the Maxwell/Heaviside equations.
A battery is more like a capacitor within a capacitor, so yes the flux lines in the center will be in the opposite direction of the terminals, but these lines DO NOT interact with the environment - they are contained within the battery and cannot be altered by external E-fields. In a magnet, the internal field lines CAN be altered by outside forces, and that I believe may lead to great things.
QuoteFlux is not a flow of some sort of "charge"
from a high to a low concentration, like electrical charge is.
I bet Flux is what happens when the universe takes a crap.
QuoteFlux is a spin field, current is a flow of charge.
Nope, its a galactic poopy :D Seriously though, you can make current flow without producing a magnetic field. Wind a coil in one direction then reverse the direction and wrap it the other way. Plug a battery to it and you'll find current flows but the magnetic field is canceled. So what happens to the energy that would normally be put into the field? I THINK the answer is that the energy that would normally go into the magnetic field, is free to be consumed by the load.
QuoteActually, the electret is the electrical version of the magnet. The battery is slightly different in its operating principle and
in that it generates an actual electrical current, a continuous forceful flow of electrical charge between the poles...
So yeah, ok, you got me there. ;) Mea culpa mea culpa I did not include that in my story while I should have I guess. :)
Electrets are pretty freaky. I don't know much about them other than you can find them in pre-polarized microphones and that they don't last nearly as long as a magnet.
The Electron Hoax
One of the absurd about electrons being actually N & S magnets, is that
if you take the magnetic model as the building block of matter, waves and
electricity and you say ?This is a crazy impossible model, but let?s give it
a chance and see what happen? (there is no risk saying that to yourself).
Then some "never asked" questions (tested and explained by others, then you),
may start to make sense :
1. Why positive attract negative ?
2. Why wherever there is electricity - there are magnetic fields ?
And not the other way around ?
3. Why magnets have natural orbiting features (one stream against another
like in a bar magnet or earth) and for the electron does not have any
reason to orbit ?
4. Why start with one particles, instead of two that can create many more
phenomenas then one ?
5. If the atom made of orbiting electrons and the orbit break (in a battery),
you can easily detect two currents coming out, one from each terminal (with a
simple compass) ?
6. Assuming that magnets orbiting the atom and connected by magnetic
field to form matter, that may explain the ?missing link of gravity? of
how magnets attract matter ? And how the sun attract earth (by magnetic
field) ?
7. Maybe the atom structure reflected in earth structure, which reflected
in the solar system, which reflected galaxies ? After all, everything
have to be belong to each other?or part of it.
8. We already have here, under our nose two particles that : orbit, attract, repel,
have two poles, very very fast, in unlimited in quantities, run as waves,
somehow exists anywhere in the universe, so why not start there ?
Why to force new particle where they don?t belong ?
Maybe we are programmed to think that these question are for Einstein and up,
while 12th grade student, doing simple tests, can give the answer?
Cheers
Just a curious thing about Electrons.
Whenever electron motion described with a certain orientation of motion (or any electric
phenomena), the ?Electromagnetic Tool? comes to aid the ?lost in dark, electricity? to find it? way.
I just wonder if the electron will get lost one day without the magnets guidness,
what it?s going to do ?
Also, when it comes to motion of electricity (discharge of static electricity, repulsion and
attraction within the atom, orbiting the atom, etc.). Isn?t it weird that the electron suddenly
have to ?wear a mask? of magnets and imitate it?s characteristics?
Isn?t weird that the ?Gray Lines? between electricity and magnetism are kept at the same
width for more then a century ? And we still cannot decide ?
Cheers
Aaargh.
Well you guys can choose to reject it but the fact remains that
you can rewrite the entire electron story in the form of a purely magnetic
interpretation and vice versa, and both will be equally good as a
model, and neither model will be able to tell us which one is
"the absolute truth".
It's not a matter of them being absolute truths, it's a matter of them being
seemingly true to our limited set of senses and our limited reality.
After all, we know the things we see are not truly how things are.
That's entirely why we must make such abstract models of reality,
to slowly learn what lies behind the appearences of our physical world.
The electron-based model works just fine in most cases that we care to model,
and if you rewrite the thing into a purely magnetic based model it still works exactly the same.
You can call the sun a "magnosphere" for all I care, it does not behave differently.
Similarly, I do not see anything spectacular in the Leedskalnin papers, he has merely
replaced the assumption of an electron with its related spin (magnetism) by the
assumption of two seperate magnetic particles that must always flow in opposition
to have an electrical effect.
All he does is replace the particle called "electron" with its surrounding magnetic field
by two "magnetic" particles. Effectively, if you draw it out, the magnetic field structure
and pattern he discribes is exactly the same as that around the "electron".
The only difference is that Leedskalnin chooses to dismiss the electron and
adopts these two opposite magnet particles as fundamental 'particles', but all of
the effects he discribes are well known electrical effects...
His interpretation does not add anything.
There is zero added value to Leedskalnins observations and assumptions.
Even worse, while he seems to imply that those who believe in electrons are crazy
and there is really no such thing,
he does not at all show why the assumption of two hypothetical particles would
in any way be preferable over the assumption of only one hypothetical particle,
if the rest of the entire model remains identical.
Occams razor says that is not a logical conclusion...
Ed Leedskalnin does not describe anything special. The generator he so proudly
claims to have a patent application for is nothing special. It is a simple generator
much like the so-called "Sundance" generator or "M?ller" generator, where a wheel
rotates coils through a magnetic field.
And what "grey lines" are you talking about?
There are no "grey lines". It's all quite clear.
Charge differences give rise to charge flow, charge flow causes particles to rotate
along at least one axis relative to its motion, rotation causes spin coherence in space,
spin fields influence eachother directly through space without anything having to flow
through that space, and this again can lead to particle flows and charge differences...
Oh, and @Charlie, yes you can make a coil that produces a zero net magnetic field
while current does run through it.
But you are creating spinor/tensor/scalar fields that way. It is doing something,
and doing so by using the spin coupling, it is just not doing it in such a way
that we can measure a classical straightforward magnetic field.
But pull in Maxwells quaternion interpretation of electromagnetism (the crucial
element left out of Maxwells final book when Heaviside edited it) and you will see
how scalar fields and interactions are damn well possible. And they would measure
zero on classical electromagnetic measurement devices.
The "scalar wave transmitter" built by Naudin is a good example that shows
"impossible" effects: the transmitter can transmit a radio signal straight through a
Faraday cage! Typical scalar effect, and typically impossible according to classical
interpretations of electromagnetic theory. (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/sclxmtr.htm)
There is a lot more to electromagnetism than we are taught in school.
But if you do your own research and read up on it, you can work it out
quite easily. Doing your own thought experiments is always a good idea,
and studying "anomalous" or "impossible" results or interpretations can be
very helpfull.
In any case, @Charlie again, I would like to point out that it is usefull
to keep an eye on the spiral movement of energy flows in the case
of the example you gave of the backfolded coil. ;)
(Oh, and I do know quite a bit about electrets as they are related to my
research into crystal cells. By the way. ;))
Koen1,
I bet you did not performed even one of Ed Leedskalnin tests, neither read one of his
four pamphlets thoroughly http://www.leedskalnin.net/writing.htm
How do I know ? Simple, if you don?t clearly see how magnets runs in a wire, or
understand how magnets orbit a bar magnet (which is very different from how science
describe), at least it should raise some DOUBTS and make you RE-VISIT what you
think you know about electricity and magnets?
Please don?t take it personally, since it?s not about you, but about a concept (electron)
that was mistakenly unidentified by J.J. Thomson and then settled in the mind of a
WHOLE CULTURE. So it?s not only about showing how North & South magnets are
the only responsible for electricity, but it?s a PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIER.
And that?s the tough part to deal with.
You look around and see electricity everywhere you look, and then you ask : Well, if
it works and everyone one calls it electricity (including text-books and science), then
who cares if it?s magnets or electrons ?
I already have a proof that it works and bring results, so what?s the big deal here ?
That?s the psychological barrier I?m talking about.
Now, these are some points that Ed shows in his notes and tests, that contradicted
with what you know :
1. Electricity is not one current, but two currents (streams) that made of North and
South individual magnets that runs one against another.
2. One current cannot run by itself since there is nothing to attract it to run from the
other side. In a battery the Positive terminal is where the North pole individual
magnets are coming out and the Negative terminal is where the South pole magnets
are coming out. In order for them to run they need to attract one another.
3. Magnets are MONOPOLES. Each individual magnet (whether it?s North or South)
have only one pole. So much why ? Since if they had been Bipolar - they would not
need their other counterpart. They would just attached to each other - ?tail to nose to tail
to nose? - and never move anywhere. Never attract, never repel, never orbit, etc.
4. The circulation in a bar magnet is the same as earth. The North pole magnets are coming
out of the South pole and around into the North pole, then inside the earth and back to the
South pole. Same with the South pole magnets - but in the opposite direction.
In fact the North pole magnets are going up everywhere in the Southern hemisphere around
and down into the Northern hemisphere. The South pole magnets are going up in the
Northern hemisphere and down into the Southern hemisphere.
- Science claim that magnets are Bipolar that coming out of the Northern pole, and around
the earth down into the Southern pole and then back through the earth to the
Northern pole - big mistake !!!
5. In a generator or dynamo the rotating South and North magnets around the core are actually
?pumping? the North and South individual magnets from the air (earth circulation), and
induces them into the core. Since the core cannot holds all the incoming magnets, it push
them into the coil (in bulks). Since the wires are narrow, the induced bulks become paths that
divided into streams of N / S / N / S. In order for them to start running they needs a
resistor in the middle, so they can attract each other.
- Science tells us that the electrons (that are negative charge) are coming out of the
positive terminal (which is a weird thing by itself?), then going through the resistor and
back into the negative terminal. It explain what it's doing but not WHY it's doing it.
6. In a Zinc / Acid battery, the acid atoms takes apart the Zinc atoms, break their orbit and the
South and North individual pole magnets are liberating and each one goes to it?s terminal.
Since all Atoms are made of N & S pole magnets (and the NPM - Neutral Particle of Matter),
now you can relate Magnets to MATTER, and this is a BIG - DEAL !!! Because from here
it is possible to start explain gravity, chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, etc.
And many more examples that I can give you.
Now, I agree that Ed?s language - is difficult to understand, especially when he describe his
experiments. The tests themselves are very easy to perform, but there are many details that you
have to follow. For instance the test where he magnetized 3 needles. The battery have to be South
of copper wire, Positive terminal - East, Negative terminal - West. The needles have to be placed
In a certain way across the copper wire. And then you tap on the negative terminal??
So basically you have to do it right, and most people have no patient for that.
Especially if you already made up you mind that you are not going to witness anything different
from what you already know - so why to spend the time and effort ?
You see, it?s not about a ?war against the Electron?. There is no blame, no attack, nothing personal.
It?s all about - if you (Koen1) wants to re-visit what you know, or you are already satisfy and don?t
need more then that?.
Cheers
QuoteScience claim that magnets are Bipolar that coming out of the Northern pole, and around
the earth down into the Southern pole and then back through the earth to the
Northern pole - big mistake !!!
I have to agree with science here, there is a field traveling in the center of the earth, just like in a bar magnet. Look at my picture. Take a cylinder bar magnet and place an aluminum ring around the outside. Now stand the magnet on its south pole and place it on a bearing so that it rotates about it's axis. Apply a 9 volt battery to the magnet's axis and to the side of the magnet like the first drawing in the figure. Now do the same thing but place the terminal on the aluminum ring. The rotation of the magnet will be different depending on where the terminal is applied to on the side. This shows that the magnetic field on the inside of the magnet is in the opposite direction than that of the outside. In the picture, the blue arrows represent the external field, the red arrows represent the internal field.
Another thing about Ed's theory. If charge was really magnetic monopoles, then a permanent magnet would repel or attract to a positively charged plate (since the plate would be crawling with magnetic north poles). This does not happen. The charge is not a tiny magnet monopole, it is something else. The two fields only interact when one of them is moving, and the movement has to be at a 90 degree angle. Ed's theory does not support this, and these are proven experiments you can do easily at home.
I like Ed, he was a good man and did a lot of great things. I think parts of his theory have merit, but I don't think his theory can explain everything.
Also allow me to say,
If we view magnets = electrons, it?s even much worth then view them as separate
entities, since there is a big difference between them (see my last 3 posts).
Now, the ?Gary Line? (between electricity and magnetism) I mentioned before, is
because since Faraday (he was the last one to understand that they are not the same thing),
no one (beside Ed, maybe Tesla and maybe very few researchers), realized who comes
first, and once J.J. Thomson came ?invented? his Electrons
http://www.leedskalnin.net/elect-1.htm then they become one and the same, which is an
absurd of course, unfortunately everyone is captures by these imaginary particles.
About Ed Leedskalnin, it is important to separate between Ed the man / what he did
and his massage. Ed himself is an open subject to discuss, whether his generator was
An OU machine, or he levitate blocks in the air or drill through the Coral rock with
Magnetic waves - all this is a speculations and everyone will judge it for him/her selves.
Ed?s massage is a different story, since it?s about reality right this second and how it works.
evidently he was smart, since he did not come up with a theory that explain how to build
an OU machine or why the Big Bang theory is nonsense. He started from the most basic
building blocks of the universe (Magnets).
Just look around and see how ALL trends of science are confused, unrelated with each
other, not even synchronized, isolated from each other light years. Most of this confusion
(not all of it but most), is because this little mistake back in the 19th century. Since if that
Would understood as ?nature suggest?, everything would look different today.
Just thoughts.
Enjoy
Cocaine's a hell of a drug!
Charlie_V,
Looking at your model (the one that try to show why Monopoles cannot exist),
I can tell you right away before even going down to business, that your model
show many things, but not the non existence of monopoles !!!
First let me ask you (don?t mean to embarrass you) :
Did you do this test yourself, and these are the results you got ?
I?m asking, since I just made exactly the same test (5 min. ago) and the magnet
always turned in the same direction, in both cases !!!
So maybe I did something wrong - please explain.
Before continue to ?why it works? like it does, I want to make sure we have the
same results.
Cheers
Sorry rangerover444, yes I did this experiment but it was several years ago. I could of sworn I used aluminum but maybe it was iron/steel. The flux lines on the inside of the magnet are in the opposite direction to the outside, but the inside flux is much more concentrated than the outside. In the experiment I did, there was a point where the magnet would turn one way, a point where it wouldn't spin at all, and a point where the magnet would spin in the opposite direction.
Its a balancing act. Try replacing your aluminum ring with an iron one (make sure the ring's thickness is pretty good). Then try applying the terminal to the spots I have shown in this new drawing below. If this doesn't work I'll try to dig up my old note book to see exactly what I did. This worked for me before, it should work for you too.
Once you get this working, I'm up for any interpretation you might have regarding how you think it works. The principle of this device is based on the Lorentz force. The classical explanation is that the flow of "electrons" or current through the magnet is at a 90 degree angle to the magnetic field. Using the right hand rule, the magnet will feel a force in the direction tangent to the magnet's circumference, which causes it to spin. This is a simplified version of a Faraday disc. But it was interesting to me that the fields on the outside were different from the inside.
@rangerover: You are making contradictory claims.
First you laugh at me for using the electron model, implying that
electrons do not really exist, but rather it is Eds "magnetic particles".
Now you say electricity and magnetism are two different things.
Ergo they do exist as different things.
Ergo there are electrons, or my statement that you can rewrite
one into the other is valid.
Study electrodynamics before shouting nonsense.
And you still have not come up with any Leedskalnin based
experiment that does not accord with "standard" electron-based
physics models.
First show yourself to be right, before you try to burn us.
Koen1,
What I said all along is that magnets are mistakenly considered as electrons, and
that there is no such a thing as electron. And I made a comment that if you see them
as the same entity (and ?gray line? between them) it?s even worse then have a clear
line between them, since it?s there where you can start to see that electricity is another
form of magnetism (which means, that the electron does not exists).
I?m not laughing at anyone who thinks different then me and respect every opinion
or thought of another person.
Maybe the way I?m asking ?irritating questions? about the existence of the electron,
making you (or others) feel uncomfortable, so please don?t take it personally, it?s
about find out how nature works and I think any researcher or scientist should question
him/her selves these question.
I will bring up one or more of Ed?s tests and explain.
Cheers
1
Quote from: rangerover444 on May 30, 2008, 09:05:03 AM
Koen1,
What I said all along is that magnets are mistakenly considered as electrons, and
that there is no such a thing as electron. And I made a comment that if you see them
as the same entity (and ?gray line? between them) it?s even worse then have a clear
line between them, since it?s there where you can start to see that electricity is another
form of magnetism (which means, that the electron does not exists).
I?m not laughing at anyone who thinks different then me and respect every opinion
or thought of another person.
Maybe the way I?m asking ?irritating questions? about the existence of the electron,
making you (or others) feel uncomfortable, so please don?t take it personally, it?s
about find out how nature works and I think any researcher or scientist should question
him/her selves these question.
I will bring up one or more of Ed?s tests and explain.
Cheers
Ok thanks. I am sorry if I was rude earlier.
I have a tendency to not say things that seem logical to me, and I sometimes
run into that when I assume others see things the same way because they seem so
logical to me. I guess I may have done that here a bit.
Let me try to clarify my standpoint:
First of all we are not made to observe electrical and magnetic interactions clearly and in detail,
our sensory apparatus and operating system is only fit to observe and handle a limited set of
energy exchanges with out living environment. Any direct observations of radio waves or magnetic
fields for example are impossible, we need to make indirect observations using some medium.
So we look at how things we can observe react to magnetic fields, electric fields, heat, pressure,
etc, and we try to come up with a system that seems to make sense of all these indirect observations
by postulating theories of things we cannot observe, but we can observe the effects of these things
and by a process of empirical testing and elimination we have managed to work out a very nice model
of this invisible reality, up to a point.
turns out there are several models that work, and some work better than others, and some only work
in a certain "zone". For example, newtonian mechanics works very well for most "normal" scale objects
and systems, but if we "zoom in" to quantum scale all of a sudden newtonian physics seems to go
for a ball of snot and we must use quantummechanical wave functions to calculate things.
That does not immediately mean newtonian physics is worthless, fake or "does not exist".
It just means it is a usefull model with scale restrictions.
In electromagnetics, it was quite quickly found that electricity, at the time still mostly electrostatics,
and magnetism, at the time still mostly magnetostatics, are directly related. So it was later
combined into electromagnetics, which basically says electricity and magnetism are two sides
of the same coin.
As chemistry developed and the periodic table was worked out in increasing detail, the model
they came up with using the electron as basic particle for interatomic interaction appeared to be
a very good and usefull model. It just so happens one could use that same electron model in
electrodynamic and electromagnetic theory, and so it was done.
It may indeed be that in the absolute reality that we can never observe anyway, there is no such thing
as the electron. It may be that in this absolute reality time is also not real.
But we live in our slice of the multiverse, where we see and experience things in a certain way, and
so far the electron model has been quite usefull.
What I see Leedskalnin do in his papers is nothing more than a repetition of the most common
observations of electromagnetism, mixed with his own convictions and assumptions, most of which
are not at all necessary conclusions based on the little observations he made. They are possible
conclusions if you assume you can replace the electron by two oppositely flowing "magnetic particles"
of opposite polarity, but if you do that, then those are not conclusions but merely repetitions of
the assumption that he repeats every time one would otherwise have written "electron".
There is no empricial observation of these oppositely flowing oppositely polarised particles.
There is only the observation of the effects, which are equally wel explained by common electromagnetics.
Now what that sounds like to me is just an arbitrary shift from an assumed electron with magnetic
field effects, to an assumed pair of magnetic particles that must somehow always exist in oppositely flowing
pairs or otherwise not.
Does it really make much difference if you explain observed effects by a cause related to assumed and never
directly observed particle X, or by a cause related to assumed and never directly obseved particle set Y+Z ?
With the electron you assume a charge carrying particle surrounded by a magnetic field component,
with the "magnetic particles" you assume a coherent pair of flux carrying particles surrounded by an
electric field component.
Neither have been directly observed, both can be used in almost identical way to explain the same
observed effects with only a slightly different field interaction model.
I understand that you prefer to believe the electron does not exist.
I do not see any proof of that though. I just see that electromagnetism is not either of the two:
it is not electrostatics nor magnetostatics, and it is both.
I do agree with you that thinking about how the world works is a healthy habit. :)
So let's just jump in some deeper water ;) and pull in the quantumphysical concept
of the electron as a cloud of virtual photons, while magnetism is a spin field.
In that view, the electron as such indeed does not exist... and yet it does.
The cloud of virtual photons which is the electron does not have a clearly defined
location, it has
probabilities of it being at a location when you take measurements.
The interactions between electrons in this view do not consist of any direct interactions
of the one electron "bumping into" another or anyhing liek that, it has to do with the
exchange of parts of this virtual photon cloud. Some of its virtual photons can temporarily
become actual photons and move energy to another atom or electron, where they get
absorbed into the virtual photon cloud again as virtual photons. On that scale,
reality is not as clear cut as it seems to be for us comparatively huge humans.
In the virtual photon model, the electron as such does and does not exist, in that
the electron is identified with the virtual photon cloud, so there is something we
call "electron" but it is actually not one particle but a cloud of not even actual but
virtualphotons. Yes, you read that right: both does and does not exist, depending on what
model you use, and it does not really change the observed effects. Only on applications
and observations on that same quantum scale can we observe and apply these intricate
nuances of quantumphysics, as soon as we "zoom out" to the microscale they seem
to disappear effectively.
Would you also say that Newtonian physics is wrong, just because on the quantum scale
it does not appear to work anymore?
Ok, so I think I have made my point that things are not always as clear cut as they seem,
and that models are just that: models. They can be extremely usefull and even accurate
if and when applied on the right scale. But they are still models of an absolute reality that
we cannot experience, and they are not that reality itself.
I anxiously await the tests you promised, can't wait to see something based on the
Leedskalnin ideas that other and accepted scientific models cannot explain or do
not predict. :)
After all, that is where the value of a theory lies: in its ability to explain or predict things
that other theories could not.
If there is a Leedskalnin based experiment that yields anomalous results in that the results
do not accord with the predictions of more commonly accepted theories, then I would love
to see it (because so far I have not seen anything of the sort anywhere in the Leedskalnin stuff).
cheers
Koen
Hi all...I see the comments are going strong....
I've made the test i mentioned for Charlie V and put it on you tube.
I'm sorry but i've run out of time tonight (have to go out)...will have to post tomorrow.
Koen1,
Thanks for presenting your thoughts so clearly. And sorry it took me so long
to respond (too busy at work).
I agree with you that we cannot directly observed particles, waves and other micro, high
speed phenomenas, therefore we have to approach them in indirectly methods and to
build models, according to observations.
You are right about the Newtonian Physics that is right up to the Quantum. And actually
most theories in physics and astronomy attempt to describe observations and explain
many non-observable phenomenas by indirect ways to gain more precise and detailed
Information (like the electron cloud and the proton you mentioned).
We all agree that the means in which we gain the information - is CRUCIAL and can
be done in different ways and display different results. For instance : if you build an
Oscilloscope and attempt to measure different characteristics of certain waves (including
electricity). If a waves is made of two currents (from both sides running one against the
other) or if a wave is a 3D ?right hand whirling motion" (and not 2D as the scop show).
Then you are using the wrong instruments for measuring waves. I?m emphasized
the word IF, assuming that Ed?s model is right. Same with Voltmeter / Ampmeter,
Spectrometer, Particle Accelerator and long list of scientific instruments that where
made to give results - THAT FIT THE CAPABILTY OF THE INSTRUMENT, based
on how they were built.
I brought it up, since it seems that the more basic the more simple are the tests, the less
you are dealing with a ?Sold Game?. And this is the nice thing about Ed?s tests.
Though they are indirect tests and you can interpret them in different ways, the more
tests you run, that will ?round up? a phenomena from as many as sides as possible, so
you can start to make the ties and test them as well. Until at the end you get a model.
Let me bring here one of first Ed?s tests from his Magnetic Current pamphlet :
?Now I will tell you how the currents are running when they come out of a car battery,
and what they can do. Now get the equipment. First put a wooden box on floor,
open side up, cut two notches in middle so you can put a one-eighth of an inch thick and
eighteen-inch long copper wire across the box. Put the wire one end East, the other West.
Stay yourself West, put car battery South side of the box positive terminal East,
negative terminal West, get two flexible leads and four clips to fit the battery and the bare
copper wire, connect the East end of the copper wire with positive terminal, clip the West
end of the copper wire with the West side flexible lead, leave the connection with negative
terminal open. Break two pieces of the steel fishing (needles) line one inch long, put each
piece by middle across the copper wire, one on top of the copper wire and the other under,
hold with your fingers, now touch the negative terminal with the loose clip, hold until
the copper wire gets hot. Take them off, now you have two magnets, hang them up by
middle in fine thread. The upper magnet will hang the way it is now, but the one below
will turn around?.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0040-50.jpg&hash=86208c31045a3057c7180405b6c9fbe4d6b05d5d)
This is another test in a slight different combination :
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0041-50.jpg&hash=ed34027dacc37fd8d7614b7029681b5e26c63bb4)
Ed have a few more combinations of the same test. In general you can put across the copper
wire as many needles (Ed call the hard fishing wires) as you want - above, under, vertical, or
any other crossing angle, and in all the combos the needles will be magnetized due to
the ?right hand Whirling motion? of the North and South magnets currents that comes from
each side and run one against the other. This phenomena happen due to the motion of the two
currents inside the wire that ?throwing the magnets ACROSS? the wire, due to centrifugal
force and ?angular momentum laws?. And the needles set as a conductors (since it's easier for
the currents to run in the needles then in the air), though this test will work even without the
needles, but then it's impossible to "see" where and how the currents going across the wire.
Again I have to emphasized - This tests by itself does not carry enough evidences that
electricity is made of magnets, it is just show one aspect of it, one angle of view.
Ed have other 56 tests in his Magnetic Currents and other tests and explanations in his
other pamphlets. When you do these tests, a clear picture starts to emerge?
Cheers
Sorry for the quality, I hope these are better :
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0040-9.jpg&hash=9d365a1b9822529cde5527123cb9feaf239fb105)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0041-3.jpg&hash=e5cca7b21de18907ee7056ae9590a8407846a88d)
Rangerover,
alright, thanks for bringing up this example of Eds experiments.
Allow me to explain how I look at this;
I see a confirmation of commonly accepted electron-based elecromagnetic theory
in this experiment.
We know that a circular magnetic field surrounds a wire through which current runs.
We can, just like Ed did, use compass needle magnets that we hold and move
around the wire to show this. Except that Ed apparently did not make such an observation
directly on the wire, but rather he first starts to use the current wire to produce
magnetised pieces of steel wire through normal magnetisation. (I say "normal"
because there is nothing extraordinary about steel or iron wire that becomes magnetised
under the influence of such a circular magnetic field when the wire is allowed to become
red hot.)
Now taking this fact of a circular B-field around a current wire, and putting a piece of
steel or iron wire on top of it and one below it, at 90 degrees, and the two touching
the live wire, magnetisation in the orientation shown in your drawings is to be expected.
It does not automatically prove any assumed opposing flow of magnetic particles at all.
So yes, the effect of the wires becoming magnetised so that one wire must turn around
in order for them both to face the same pole the same direction, as described by Ed,
is an observation that accords 100% with accepted electromagnetic theory.
But in my opinion it is still no reason to conclude that therefore there must be two
opposed magnetic monopole flows rather than one electric flow.
That is simply an assumption which Ed keeps throwing into his story, but there
is no clear reason to dismiss the electron in favour of it at all.
I have also seen an experiment on YouTube done by Sparks I believe, that claims
to be a Leedskalnin-inspired setup of a core made of strainds of iron wire coiled in a circle,
then cut in the middle and two permanent magnets connected in between as to create a
magnetic "circuit" in the "core", and one coil wound around the "core" on one end,
a bifilar coil wound arounf the "core" on the other end, then he pulses the one coil
and gets an interesting scope pic from the bifilar that shows a sort of fluctuating wave
superposed onto the crests and valleys of the input oscillations. In the video I believe
it is remarked that this clearly shows the "up" and "down" magnetic flow.
I disagree and I just see magnetic resonance effects of the permanent magnets on the
iron of the core, that become more pronounced and visible on the scope due to an
offset or imbalance created by the input oscillations... Which again does not need
assumed opposing monopole magnet flows to be understood, necessarily.
In any case, in my opinion the example you brought up and drew does not conflict
commonly accepted electromagnetic theory, nor does it give any good reason why
Leedskalnins concept of two oppositely flowing magnetic monopole currents is in any
way a better or more clear model than the electron based model.
I would still love to see a Leedskalnin theory based device (or design) that does things
that do not accord with established electron-based theory.
Like a setup that manages to pull actual current from a permanent magnet directly.
After all, if it is so simple that two oppositely polarised magnetic monople flows
flow out of (and back into) a permanent magnet all the time, and these opposite
monopole flows must 'simply' bump into eachother and entangle to produce electron
flow, then we should be able to come up with an ingenious coil setup that allows
these monopole flows to combine into current, with no other source than the monopole
source.
And if we want to show something like that, I think we must in any case not use a
setup where we flip the flux from a permanent magnet alternately through seperate
legs of the core. That works, but then we're just flipping the flux like in a transformer,
and that is again understandable as normal electromagnetics and does not need
any Leedkalnin style monople assumption either... So it cannot be used as proof
of his theory. Well, it might, but in the same manner as it "proves" electron-based interpretations:
it does not necessarily disprove the other.
Thanks for taking the time to draw it out though. Much appreciated.
I usually "draw" these things in my mind, which makes it easier to also use it as a dynamic simulation.
And the picture in my mind, although it does not use the same colours as your drawing, is very similar.
In my mental picture I also have Ed standing on the East or West side of the box, putting the wires
on the current wire, etc. :) After all, Ed is very clear on where he puts what. That is one thing I do like
(and have always liked) about his story: he at least tries to describe clearly how he did what.
He doesn't really succeed always though. For example, he never says very clearly how the monopole
currents "swirl". Yes, he says they both "swirl" in the same "right-hand" fashion, but in the same sentence
he says the flows are opposed. This can be interpreted in different ways. It can mean that each flow
has a right-hand rotation in its own direction of motion, or it can mean that the combination of the two rotates
along the same axis in the same direction in the cross-section of the wire, which could mean they
have opposite rotation in respect to their individual directions of motion. Hm... I see this may come across
quite unclear... I hope you see what I'm saying. Does Ed mean the opposite flow each have their own individual
right-hand rotation, or does the pair have a right-hand rotation at the point where they "intersect" or "combine"
to form electrical current? I would assume he means it the way you drew it, as that seems to correspond with
the circular magnetic field around a wire... but it could be that that was not exactly what he meant to suggest...
Well, anyway, it seems to me this is a good example of Ed giving a lot of details yet still not being perfectly
clear in what exactly he is trying to describe. ;)
Koen,
Thanks for your observation and thorough explanations (not many people pay that much
attention to Ed?s tests, even if the try the tests in their heads?).
Allow me to follow your notes and make comments :
Koen : ?I see a confirmation of commonly accepted electron-based electromagnetic theory
in this experiment.?
- The phenomena might be explained, not the drawing.
Koen : ?We know that a circular magnetic field surrounds a wire through which current runs.?
- circular - yes, but what circular ? We can have waves go in straight lines, standing waves,
spiral, Longitudinal waves, pressure waves, etc.
- How do they go in and out of the wire ?
- Is centrifugal force and other angular momentum laws are involved ?
- Just ?magnetic field around the wire?, is insufficient to describe how it works.
Koen : ?We can, just like Ed did, use compass needle magnets that we hold and move
around the wire to show this. Except that Ed apparently did not make such an
observation directly on the wire, but rather he first starts to use the current wire
to produce magnetized pieces of steel wire through normal magnetization.
(I say "normal" because there is nothing extraordinary about steel or iron wire that
becomes magnetized under the influence of such a circular magnetic field when
the wire is allowed to become red hot.)?
- You cannot hold a compass around ?charged wire? and understand the delicate lines of
force and draw a picture from that, since neither compass nor magnetic needle can detect it.
- This is why Ed chose to start with unmagnified needle (hard fishing wire), so it will pick up
the currents that run in the wire and reflect their movement. Very much the way a slide-show
machine run light through the slide to reflect the small image on a large white screen.
- Ed used the current in the wire to magnetized the needles, in order to show how the currents
runs, not necessarily to magnetized the needles (?Through normal magnetism?).
- Sorry to say that again but the words ?magnetic field?, ?Flux? or ?vortex?, are insufficient
to describe in detail ?what?s inside? and how it works.
Koen : ?Now taking this fact of a circular B-field around a current wire, and putting a piece of
steel or iron wire on top of it and one below it, at 90 degrees, and the two touching
the live wire, magnetization in the orientation shown in your drawings is to be expected.
It does not automatically prove any assumed opposing flow of magnetic particles at all.?
- As long as you put the needles across the wire - IN ANY ANGLE OR ABOVE OR BELOW,
The needle will magnetized according to the motion of two ?right hand whirling motion?
Currents that enter the wire from both side and run one against another.
- I will be pleased to see another explanation as to why the needles are magnetized exactly
as they are (North pole and South pole always reflect the current runs in the wire).
- Here is another interesting point : common theory claim that the magnetic field will operate
at 90 degrees to an electric wire (with running electricity), which is correct, but insufficient,
Since the ?magnetic field? is not ?one bulk? and magnets. It have laws, it have orientation,
it have two poles and characteristics. Pay attention to the drawings and see that the needles
can be magnetized (N or S poles side) - ONLY IN ONE WAY. So the magnetic field that
is 90 degrees to the wire described by science is not wrong - but vague and unclear (which
preventing to identify the ?players?).
Koen : ?So yes, the effect of the wires becoming magnetized so that one wire must turn around
in order for them both to face the same pole the same direction, as described by Ed,
is an observation that accords 100% with accepted electromagnetic theory.
But in my opinion it is still no reason to conclude that therefore there must be two
opposed magnetic monopole flows rather than one electric flow.
That is simply an assumption which Ed keeps throwing into his story, but there
is no clear reason to dismiss the electron in favor of it at all.
- Let me correct you on something : Ed says that one current by itself - cannot run, only two
currents of different poles can run (one against another), since they are attracting each other.
- It may not be a scientific question, but why do we need electrons and magnets ?
Why not one of the that is both ?
Koen : ?I have also seen an experiment on YouTube done by Sparks I believe, that claims
to be a Leedskalnin-inspired setup of a core made of strands of iron wire coiled in
a circle, then cut in the middle and two permanent magnets connected in between as
to create a magnetic "circuit" in the "core", and one coil wound around the "core" on
one end, a bifilar coil wound around the "core" on the other end, then he pulses the one
coil and gets an interesting scope pic from the bifilar that shows a sort of fluctuating
wave superposed onto the crests and valleys of the input oscillations. In the video I
believe it is remarked that this clearly shows the "up" and "down" magnetic flow.
I disagree and I just see magnetic resonance effects of the permanent magnets on the
iron of the core, that become more pronounced and visible on the scope due to an
offset or imbalance created by the input oscillations... Which again does not need
assumed opposing monopole magnet flows to be understood, necessarily?.
- Sorry, I did not see the video and it?s a little hard for me to understand exactly what he did.
If you don?t mind, please put up this link so I could watch.
- One of Ed?s nicest tests, have to do with spinning Iron Filings with rotating magnet underneath,
that creates ridges and valleys, that look like a Rose flower ,though I think the test you saw is
a bit different, and it is not one of Ed?s original tests.
- I don?t mean to say nothing with regard to this guy specifically. But believe it or not,
Most of Ed?s inspired personal - discovered something new, but it?s only 2% of what they
should discovered. And even these 2% are fascinating, the problem is, that they take it
further without do all of Ed?s tests and without the observations that comes from these tests.
So even if there are 2,000 people like that in the world maybe 2 or 4 got really far with it (and
even they still have much more to study). If you ?let in? Ed?s ideas (by reducing in your mind
the ?flow of text-book currents?), they are Explosive !!! Unfortunately most people that try
that, don?t know how to handle it and ends up with their own imaginary ?Ed?s theory??.
Koen : ?I would still love to see a Leedskalnin theory based device (or design) that does things
that do not accord with established electron-based theory.
Like a setup that manages to pull actual current from a permanent magnet directly.
After all, if it is so simple that two oppositely polarized magnetic monopole flows
flow out of (and back into) a permanent magnet all the time, and these opposite
monopole flows must 'simply' bump into each other and entangle to produce electron
flow, then we should be able to come up with an ingenious coil setup that allows
these monopole flows to combine into current, with no other source than the monopole
source.
- I wish like you to see ?Leedskalnin based device?, that does things differently then established
theory (a working model), though I would say that is already here, since it is not the model that
is so important, it?s how THINGS WORKS - that make the model. And it?s more up to anyone
to test it and verified it for themselves (or not?).
- By the way, Ed?s PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder) - works not according to accepted electricity.
But since my post is already too long, I will bring it up in the future.
Koen : ?And if we want to show something like that, I think we must in any case not use a
setup where we flip the flux from a permanent magnet alternately through separate
legs of the core. That works, but then we're just flipping the flux like in a transformer,
and that is again understandable as normal electromagnetic and does not need
any Leedkalnin style monopole assumption either... So it cannot be used as proof
of his theory. Well, it might, but in the same manner as it "proves" electron-based
interpretations: it does not necessarily disprove the other.?
- Sorry, not sure which setting you mean, I have to see the whole picture prior to
making comments.
Koen : ?Thanks for taking the time to draw it out though. Much appreciated.
I usually "draw" these things in my mind, which makes it easier to also use it as a
dynamic simulation.
And the picture in my mind, although it does not use the same colours as your drawing,
is very similar. In my mental picture I also have Ed standing on the East or West side
of the box, putting the wires on the current wire, etc.
- Doing tests in your mind - are great gift (Tesla used to do that as well). But sometimes ?reality
exceeds all imagination?? Doing the physical tests, may always reveal one corner we could
not imagine. It?s like talking with someone on the phone, rather face to face?.
Koen : ?After all, Ed is very clear on where he puts what. That is one thing I do like
(and have always liked) about his story: he at least tries to describe clearly how he did what.
He doesn't really succeed always though. For example, he never says very clearly how the
monopole currents "swirl". Yes, he says they both "swirl" in the same "right-hand" fashion,
but in the same sentence he says the flows are opposed. This can be interpreted in
different ways. It can mean that each flow has a right-hand rotation in its own direction of
motion, or it can mean that the combination of the two rotates along the same axis in the
same direction in the cross-section of the wire, which could mean they have opposite rotation
in respect to their individual directions of motion. Hm... I see this may come across
quite unclear...
I hope you see what I'm saying. Does Ed mean the opposite flow each have their own
individual right-hand rotation, or does the pair have a right-hand rotation at the point
where they "intersect" or "combine" to form electrical current? I would assume he
means it the way you
drew it, as that seems to correspond with the circular magnetic field around a wire... but it
could be that that was not exactly what he meant to suggest...
Well, anyway, it seems to me this is a good example of Ed giving a lot of details yet still
not being perfectly clear in what exactly he is trying to describe?.
- Ed did not explained many things, that is up to us to figure out (or not).
- He said how the monopoles swirl, but he did not say for instance how they pass one another,
or how the triggering mechanism works (?every time you send one type of magnet, the other type
will come in the opposite direction?). It is true that many things he never explain, I think he did
that on purpose, since ?you don?t give away gold for free?? Who ever wants to know, must make
the effort? Meanwhile I can say that it works for me.
- If you want to visual the two opposing currents (right hand swirl) try to see two spring that you
?screw? them together.
- When magnet currents are running inside a wire, they run in great numbers, and it make sense that
North pole attract South pole, so they must run one against another.
- Each stream have it?s own rotation, but let?s leave that for next posts, since it?s a discussion
for itself.
- I agree with you that two drawings of his tests, are insufficient. But we can examine more tests.
Forgive my long post. I just think that since the internet is such ?Un-Personal? tool
that you can always ignore the part that the other person said, and talk only about you
want to say (like two deaf people are talking or like Babylon-Tower, if you will?)
Cheers
Quote from: rangerover444 on June 03, 2008, 02:48:08 AM
- The phenomena might be explained, not the drawing.
That's right, the drawing just shows Eds interpretation. But the observations do not
prove there is any opposite flow of magnetic monopole particles necessarily. It is
merely a possible explanation if you assume those particles.
Quote- circular - yes, but what circular ? We can have waves go in straight lines, standing waves,
spiral, Longitudinal waves, pressure waves, etc.
Yes, we can have waves in all kinds of forms. But the magnetic field around a wire is not a wave.
It is a static field of circular geometry, not a circular variation in the field intensity (which a circular
wave would be). It is the static magnetic field lines that "run" in a circle. Lines, not waves. ;)
Quote- How do they go in and out of the wire ?
Well, in Leedskalnins model where
these lines are not static but dynamic flows of monopole particles, this is also not explained
clearly. But in the electron model there is no "they", and "they" do not move "in and out" of the wire,
the magnetic field simply envelops the moving electrons at a 90 degree angle to the electric field
lines. Nothing is moving in and out of the wire. The moving electron and the magnetic field are
"connected" through spin coupling (of the electron).
Quote- Is centrifugal force and other angular momentum laws are involved ?
According to the electron model, no. According to Leedskalnins model, totally unclear.
He gives no good explanation for this; might just as well be magic. ;)
Quote- Just ?magnetic field around the wire?, is insufficient to describe how it works.
Yes, you need to understand how electrons have spin and how spin and magnetism are related.
But just assuming two totally unfounded magnetic monopole flows and claiming that is the
explanation, while not actually explaining these things such as possible angular momentum etc
in that same model does not seem like a very good alternative to me.
Quote- You cannot hold a compass around ?charged wire? and understand the delicate lines of
force and draw a picture from that, since neither compass nor magnetic needle can detect it.
No, that is true, but more so because there is no circular magnetic field around a mere charged wire.
It is a wire with
current on it that has a circular magnetic field. Eds simple tests always involved
curent as well, never static charge. And Eds tests also are equally incapable of showing anything more
'delicate' than the circular magnetic field around the conductor. No matter how often he shouts
it must be opposed flows of magnetic monopoles, he never observes this. In fact, he never truly
observes any opposed magnetic flows. He simply
assumes the N monoples must flow oppositely
to the S monopoles, and that they are and remain seperate flows. No observation of that at all,
no proof, mere assumption. It could just as well be that there is only one flow and that there
are no magnetic monopoles. After all, Eds N flow exits a magnet at the N pole and re-enters it at
the S pole, and the S flow exits at the S pole and enters at the N pole, and apparently these opposing
flows have zero trouble while plowing through eachother head-on in a magnet, but at the same time
they must always flow in an opposing whirling motion and should, according to Eds own claims,
produce the effect of electric current where they collide. But they only collide in conductors, not
in the magnet itself? Why would they collide in an inductor core and produce current in the windings
of a coil surrounding it, and not in a magnet with a coil around it? After all, the flows are still opposite,
the particles still have a "whirling motion"... Why does the coil only "see" a current when the magnetic field
is changed?
Well, according to the electron model that is because static field lines and dynamic flow are two different
things, and electron motion causes a magnetic field, while likewise magnetic field motion causes an electric
field, which causes electrons in a conductor in this field to move if they are mobile enough (= not "tied to" atoms/molecules
to rigidly so they can actually move if a field is applied).
According to Leedskalnin, magnetism is a dynamic flow just like current, so we should be able to get current directly
out of a permanent magnet.
I do not know of any setup whatsoever where current is drawn directly from a permanent magnet, besides the Magnetstromapparat
of Coler (/Cohler), and as far as I know nobody has managed to replicate that effect.
I aslo do not see Ed doing that, while his dynamic flow model should allow for it...
Quote- This is why Ed chose to start with unmagnified needle (hard fishing wire), so it will pick up
the currents that run in the wire and reflect their movement. Very much the way a slide-show
machine run light through the slide to reflect the small image on a large white screen.
I disagree. I agree that Ed seems to think that his simple wire magnetisation experiment somehow
shows his assumes opposite flows, but it really does not. It confirms the observation of magnetism
around a wire, which is the basis of Eds assumption, but you cannot use an obervation as basis of an
assumption, then do the same observation and claim it is proof of your assumption. That is a circular
argument. It is like saying "I have so far only ever seen white swans. I therfore assume there are only
swans of the white colour variety. Again, so far I have only seen white swans. This proves my assumption
that only white swans exist." It is an invalid conclusion. Black swans could exist that you simply have not
seen yet, and your assumption does not suddenly make them fade from existence. I hope you follow the
analogy?
The way I see it, Ed says "look, a normal wire with dc current has a surounding magnetic field,
of which the field lines of the top half are opposed to those in the bottom half. And when I allow
a wire to get hot while in that field, my wire now magnetises according to those field lines.
I assume this must have something to do with monopole flows, and since I can imagine how such
monopole flows could give rise to this observation, I conclude that it must necessarily be so,
and I just act as if the original observation on the basis of which I formed my assumption is
the proof of it at the same time."
And he never attempts to test his assumption. He just continues it. But since any observations
in Eds interpretation are identical to observations in the electron model interpretation,
there is no good reason to opt for Eds version in favour of the other.
Quote- Sorry to say that again but the words ?magnetic field?, ?Flux? or ?vortex?, are insufficient
to describe in detail ?what?s inside? and how it works.
That is right, you need to study
magnetism and spin on the quantum level to understand how electron motion and magnetism
are related. But it does not necessarily need a model of dynamic flow of monopole particles
at all. I understand that that may be more intuitive and closer to the world of our daily experiences,
but that does not make it more correct.
QuoteKoen : ?Now taking this fact of a circular B-field around a current wire, and putting a piece of
steel or iron wire on top of it and one below it, at 90 degrees, and the two touching
the live wire, magnetization in the orientation shown in your drawings is to be expected.
It does not automatically prove any assumed opposing flow of magnetic particles at all.?
- As long as you put the needles across the wire - IN ANY ANGLE OR ABOVE OR BELOW,
The needle will magnetized according to the motion of two ?right hand whirling motion?
Currents that enter the wire from both side and run one against another.
Please stop repeating what Ed said. I know what he said. I am still saying his assumption
of monopole flows is not proven anywhere, nor do any observations show that it is so,
nor that that interpretation is more usefull than the electron model. I am trying to make you
understand that, but you seem intent on blindly repeating Ed instead of thinking about what I said...
Quote- I will be pleased to see another explanation as to why the needles are magnetized exactly
as they are (North pole and South pole always reflect the current runs in the wire).
They are magnetised along the flied lines of the circular field around the wire!
Let's say this circular field has the lines "running" clockwise, then the wire in the top part of it
is magnetised along those lines running left to right, while the wire in the bottom part is magnetised
right to left. The field orients the ferromagnetic domains in the iron/steel wire according to its
field lines, once the wire is hot enough for the iron to have become magnetically polarisable.
Just as would happen when you were to gold the wire between two magnets when it's hot.
The model Ed uses still does not explain why these flows behave the way they do,
and so his model does not explain why electricity and magnetism are related in the
way they are. It just gives a different view of the same mystery. It's just a view that
seems more intuitive but it doesn't make it any more logical.
Quote- Here is another interesting point : common theory claim that the magnetic field will operate
at 90 degrees to an electric wire (with running electricity), which is correct, but insufficient,
Since the ?magnetic field? is not ?one bulk? and magnets. It have laws, it have orientation,
it have two poles and characteristics. Pay attention to the drawings and see that the needles
can be magnetized (N or S poles side) - ONLY IN ONE WAY. So the magnetic field that
is 90 degrees to the wire described by science is not wrong - but vague and unclear (which
preventing to identify the ?players?).
Nope. Sorry. It only goes to show that the huge distinction between the seperate N and S monopole
flows that Ed assumed is not at all necessary. The magnetic field does not necessarily have to
consist of two opposed N and S flows. Ed never shows why this should be, never proves it, it is
yet another one of his assumptions. Ed is the one being vague and unclear, making wild
assumptions about monopole flows that are based on nothing, and using observations that
do not exclude the electron model at all to claim that his assumptions are correct.
Quote- Let me correct you on something : Ed says that one current by itself - cannot run, only two
currents of different poles can run (one against another), since they are attracting each other.
How is that a correction? I never said otherwise, did I?
Quote- It may not be a scientific question, but why do we need electrons and magnets ?
Why not one of the that is both ?
Pardon? The electron
is both, in a way...
Allow me to reveal a neat little fact: if we were to travel alongside the electron, with the same speed,
we would see that there is no magnetic field around it. If we stand still and two electrons move alongside
with the same speed, we see both of them surrounded by a magnetic field, but they do not see eachother
surrounded by the same field. To them, there is no magnetic field. That is because, when all is worked out,
magnetism only occurs in situations of relative motion. It is a relativistic effect of accelleration. Sort of.
That is also why a current through a coil generates a static magnetic field, but a static magnetic field
does not create ("induce") a current in a coil. Similarly, an alternating magnetic field induces a current in a coil,
but a current in a coil does not generate an alternating magnetic field.
Do you see how the situation appears to be asymmetrical in that respect?
So in a way, the magnetic field is an observer effect, it only exists to the observer that watches the electron move
and watches its
resultant magnetic field. I repeat: observes the field that exists only to this observer when
the electron moves in respect to the observer, a field that does not exist to the electron itself, nor to other observers
traveling along with this electron.
That is one thing Ed Leedskalnin omitted to test: what happens if you move along with your current. Then all of a sudden
your magnetism disappears. Which kind of kills the concept of the magnetism being the prime force and the electron
being the resultant effect, of course... ;)
Quote- I don?t mean to say nothing with regard to this guy specifically. But believe it or not,
Most of Ed?s inspired personal - discovered something new, but it?s only 2% of what they
should discovered. And even these 2% are fascinating, the problem is, that they take it
further without do all of Ed?s tests and without the observations that comes from these tests.
So even if there are 2,000 people like that in the world maybe 2 or 4 got really far with it (and
even they still have much more to study). If you ?let in? Ed?s ideas (by reducing in your mind
the ?flow of text-book currents?), they are Explosive !!! Unfortunately most people that try
that, don?t know how to handle it and ends up with their own imaginary ?Ed?s theory??.
Claims claims but I still need to see ony of those spectacular discoveries...
Where are they?
What are they?
Please show me some. I've been asking for that ever since our discussion started here,
and still have not seen any.
Quote- Doing tests in your mind - are great gift (Tesla used to do that as well). But sometimes ?reality
exceeds all imagination?? Doing the physical tests, may always reveal one corner we could
not imagine. It?s like talking with someone on the phone, rather face to face?.
Yes. But then, if we do the tests, and the observations accord with both the electron model and
Eds model, then we cannot conclude on the basis of those tests alone that Eds model is in any
way better or more correct then the electron model.
And as I have said so often before, I do not see Ed do anything that the electron model does not
predict or explain.
If Eds model were correct and magnetism consists of opposte flows of N and S monopoles,
and current consists of these opposing flows "spiraling" against eachother,
then it should be easy to make a setup where we extract current directly from a permanent
magnet.
All we would need to do is to make a setup where the N and S monopoles swirl in the
right way along a wire...
Now we happen to have a really nice setup for a wire with current to produce a linear
magnetic field, and this is called a coil. We know that passing current through a coil
causes a magnetic field through the coil.
So, if Ed is right and we are dealing with dynamic monopole flows, we should be able
to simply wrap a coil around a magnet, and the magnetic field should induce a current
in the wire.
But that does not happen.
A permanent magnet can only induce a current in a coil if the magnetic field changes in
strength. Ed even observed that: only when you move a coil through a magnetic field
is a current induced in the coil.
Is it not odd that Ed himself observed that it needs magnetic field
changes to
produce a current in a coil, which implies current (=dynamic electron flow) can only
be induced by dynamic interaction between the coil and the static magnetic field,
while in his model he claims the static magnetic field is not static at all but it consists
of two dynamic components?
Seems to me that he is saying that on the one hand a permanent magnet has a dynamic
flow, while on the other hand it is static and needs some other source of dynamics
to induce a dynamic electron flow...
And later on in his test Ed even claims that in an electric battery there are more N poles
on the one terminal than on the other, so more N flows, and this is what creates electron flow.
So now all of a sudden the N and S pole flows in a wire with current are not in balance,
but there is more N flow than S flow?
Ok, so let's assume that is why a coil around a magnet does not produce current then...
Let's assume we could indeed produce current in this setup, as long as we make sure
there is more N flow like Ed said.
Would it be enough to create an asymmetrical situation, where we try to guide the
"flux" from the N poles of two magnets on one end of the coil into the S pole of one
magnet? hmm...
Well, it seems to me that that should not produce any current, but it is an interesting
idea to test.... Need to think about this a bit, try to come up with a workable setup.
Something that might actually be a test of Eds assumptions, and if it works should
provide a nice example of the difference between Eds model and the elecron model.
...
Lol I've been nagging you for a good example that shows how Ed might be right
and shows the difference between the electron model and Eds view...
... and now I'm actually designing my own test... :)
Hehe well if anything at least you got me to take Leedskalnins story serious enough
to actually think about a good test setup. Which is of course completely absurd in the
electron view. ;)
So let's take Leedkalnins remarks that a current from a battery "has more N poles
than S poles" and this is why there is an electrical current...
That seems to imply that, despite all of his previous talk about balanced opposite flows,
the only way to get a current out of a wire is for some kind of imbalance to be present;
this accords with his observation that one can only get AC from a coil when the coil is
moved in and out of a magnetic field (or rotated inside it), and with normal electromagnetic theory.
So somehow an imbalance must be created, and more monopoles of one kind have to
flow through the wire before we see a current... Yet Ed is very adamant about equal numbers
of these monopoles coming out of the opposing poles... This would mean that it is impossible
to take permanent magnets and use their "flux" to create any direct current in any other way
than moving the coil in the field. We can't create a monopole imbalance from perfectly balanced
permanent magnets, as the opposing flows will be equal, so that cannot get us current.
So we're back to the standard method of moving a coil in a magnetic field to get current out.
After pondering it a bit I cannot come up with a design that would somehow imbalance
the magnetic poles of a permanent magnet in such a way that a coil or wire could pick
up the imbalance as current. Or at least, that's what it looks like.
Koen, thanks for your thoughts.
Koen : ?Yes, we can have waves in all kinds of forms. But the magnetic field around
a wire is not a wave. It is a static field of circular geometry, not a circular variation in
the field intensity (which a circular wave would be). It is the static magnetic field lines
that "run" in a circle. Lines, not waves.?
- How can you build electric motor with coils around the armature, that surrounded
with static electricity ? When static electricity discharge - it's "poof" and it?s over.
These coils provide constantly Moving magnetic waves to drive the armature.
- In this case the waves traveling across the wire - out.
- Magnetic field lines - are moving wave, even in a generator with permanent magnets
around, the magnets get?s in the permanent magnet from the ?earth circulation? then
pushed to the core, then the core pushes them to the coils around and from the wires
to the resistor.
- If science could show the individual monopoles that are moving, etc. we would not
be here discussing that matter, but since they are too small and fast, science cannot
detect them, let alone assume they are there?so they call it "magnetic flux".
Koen : ?Well, in Leedskalnins model where these lines are not static but dynamic flows
of monopole particles, this is also not explained clearly. But in the electron model there
is no "they", and "they" do not move "in and out" of the wire, the magnetic field simply
envelops the moving electrons at a 90 degree angle to the electric field lines. Nothing is
moving in and out of the wire. The moving electron and the magnetic field
are "connected" through spin coupling (of the electron).?
- The motion of the monopoles, presented and explained by Ed in all of his tests. Since
they behave differently under different circumstances, many tests needs to be done in
order to show each case.
- If in the electron model magnetic field are simply enveloping the moving electrons in
the wire at 90 degrees angle to the electric field lines, then :
A. Why should the electron produce magnetic field ?
B. Why not magnets producing magnetic field ? Isn?t it more natural ?
In Niagara Falls, all the vapor and humidity from the falls - are not water ? It?s like
we would call them ?Elters? particles that produced by the flowing water ?
C. How comes an electron with negative charge running in one direction - can produce
two particles with two poles that runs in opposite directions.
Why Nature will act in such a twisted way ?
Why Nature needs this ?spin coupling?, to convert electrons to magnets ?
RR444 : ?Is centrifugal force and other angular momentum laws are involved ?
Koen : ?According to the electron model, no. According to Leedskalnins model,
totally unclear. He gives no good explanation for this; might just as well be magic.?
- So what convince the electron to exit the wire in 90 degrees, convert itself to magnetic
field that have two poles that repel and attract ?
- How come a negative charged particle become two different type particles with North
And South poles ?
- If an electron moves through a wire at a very high speed, how it can suddenly make a turn
of 90 degrees (even if most of the ?electrons? continue straight forward) ?
- Nothing in nature that travel in such a high speed and suddenly make an ?ELL Turn?,
why the electron have this privilege ?
- Or maybe we do need here centrifugal force after all ? And if we have that force we could
understand better how the particles runs inside the wire
Koen : ?Yes, you need to understand how electrons have spin and how spin and magnetism
are related. But just assuming two totally unfounded magnetic monopole flows and claiming
that is the explanation, while not actually explaining these things such as possible angular
momentum etc in that same model does not seem like a very good alternative to me.?
- The angular momentum is integral part of Ed?s model. Once you have magnetic orbit and
magnetic motion in whirling motion - you mast included angular momentum laws.
- ?Unfounded? is a term relate to human understanding, not necessarily to reality.
In order to keep the length of the post not too long. I will continue to answer and comment
on your notes in the next post.
Also I will bring up another interesting test, that will explain about the motion in the wire.
Cheers
To add some salt and pepper to our discussion, here is a nice test by Ed :
A. ?Get four pieces of wire size sixteen, six inches long, two copper and two soft iron,
bend one end of each wire back so the clips can hold it better. Use copper wire first.
Put both wires in clips, connect with battery, have the wire ends square, now put the
loose ends together, and pull them away. Then you will notice that something is
holding you back. What is it? They are magnets. When you put the ends together,
the North and South Pole magnets are passing from one wire to the other, and in doing
it they pull the wire ends together.?
B. ?Now put the soft iron wire in the clips, put the loose ends together, and pull them away.
This time the passing magnets hold the wire ends together stronger. Put the ends together
many times, then you will see which wire end gets red first, and which will make the
bigger bubble in the end, and watch the little sparks coming out from the bubbles.?
C. ?Stretch the bubbles out while they are in liquid form, then you will see in the bubble
that something is whirling around. Those little sparks you see coming out of the bubble,
they are not the magnets, but the magnets are the ones which throw the sparks out of the bubbles.
When all the magnets that are in the wire, if they cannot pass over to the other wire, they are
expending the bubble and running out of it and carrying the metal sparks with them.
When the bubble is cool, break it up, then you will see the space left where the magnets were in.?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2FDSC_1973.jpg&hash=c73399a51983e3875789ef48fde3a90c8db9a853)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0047.jpg&hash=f58a8ae8ead735da70e05ded0951bda64d059b4f)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2FDSC_1993.jpg&hash=5092d247db9d08f9d08bb871f4bd3b3bf72d91fc)
Pay attention to the sparks that being thrown at 90 degrees (most of them), due to the
centrifugal force and the speed that they approaching the contact point.
Also the ?pull? between the wires, shows that the magnets are not only creating magnetic
field around the wire, but at the touching point as well. And that due to two reasons :
1. They try to cross to the other wire.
2. Naturally when one stream of North pole approach a stream of South pole magnets, they
pull each other.
I?m not completely sure how the two streams are passing by each other, though I don?t think
they colliding, but continue along the other streams. Also I?m not sure where do they ends up.
So, I have to emphasize that I still don?t understand many things, but I'm keep seeking.
Not sure if electron with one negative charge could imitate this phenomena?
Cheers
Keon1, your last post has unfortunately reached my literary capacity to read. I will assume you made good comments as usual.
rangerover444, could you post some pictures of what the inside of those bubbles look like? I've read that same passage from Ed and I've always wanted to see what they look like. However, I never did the experiment because I didn't want to buy a car battery, or waste those that I had - the only car batteries I own are in my cars.
Charlie_V
I will try to get a better picture of the bubble, though the setting to take such a pic
should be well done, since it should be taken less then 2 second after the wires are
separated, and at a good close-up, so I?ll do my best.
Koen, I will answer the rest of your notes, in the next post. Meanwhile I hope you
will think about this test.
Thanks
Koen, thanks again for your input.
RR444 : ?You cannot hold a compass around ?charged wire? and understand the delicate
lines of force and draw a picture from that, since neither compass nor magnetic needle
can detect it.
Koen : ?No, that is true, but more so because there is no circular magnetic field around a mere
charged wire. It is a wire with current on it that has a circular magnetic field. Eds simple tests
always involved curent as well, never static charge.?
- Not really sure why we have a ?static charge? around a wire with running currents ?
Koen : ?And Eds tests also are equally incapable of showing anything more 'delicate' than the
circular magnetic field around the conductor. No matter how often he shouts
it must be opposed flows of magnetic monopoles, he never observes this. In fact, he never truly
observes any opposed magnetic flows. He simply assumes the N monoples must flow oppositely
to the S monopoles, and that they are and remain seperate flows. No observation of that at all,
no proof, mere assumption. It could just as well be that there is only one flow and that there
are no magnetic monopoles.?
- Ed?s needles across the wire, cannot show the delicate lines of force, but more a directional
display of how the running magnets are thrown across and magnetized the needles according
to their motion.
- Did you or anyone you know observed electrons running in a wire ? Same with magnets, or like
you already indicated ?we can only observe them indirectly?.
Now, if someone observed a current or currents running in a wire, and it takes him a lengthily,
complicated ?heavy-weight? explanation of a simple phenomena of a magnetic field around
a wire, something needs to be done about it?.
- One or two of Ed?s tests - are not enough to show that motion, 30 - 40 of them will do a great
service to the accepted model.
Koen : ?After all, Eds N flow exits a magnet at the N pole and re-enters it at
the S pole, and the S flow exits at the S pole and enters at the N pole, and apparently these opposing
flows have zero trouble while plowing through each other head-on in a magnet, but at the same time
they must always flow in an opposing whirling motion and should, according to Eds own claims,
produce the effect of electric current where they collide.?
- Just a small correction : N pole magnets are exit through the S pole, around and into the
N pole (or hemisphere, if we talk about the earth). And the S pole magnets - in the opposite way.
- Another correction : N & S pole magnets do not collide when the head on one another, though
I?m not sure how they cross and proceed, they don?t collide, not in a conductor neither in a
bar magnet or in a conducer core.
Koen : ?But they only collide in conductors, not in the magnet itself? Why would they collide
in an inductor core and produce current in the windings of a coil surrounding it, and not in a
magnet with a coil around it? After all, the flows are still opposite, the particles still have
a "whirling motion"... Why does the coil only "see" a current when the magnetic field is changed??
- In a generator, due to the rotating fields, they ?fill? the core with one type of magnets, and the
core pushes them to the coil (a core is not necessary to make electricity, it just to facilitate it).
- They coil itself is one magnet while it?s being ?fed? by the core (remember that copper coil
cannot hold magnets, unless it?s being fed). But that?s can be displayed by another nice test,
which I?ll may present later.
Koen : ?Well, according to the electron model that is because static field lines and dynamic flow
are two different things, and electron motion causes a magnetic field, while likewise magnetic field
motion causes an electric field, which causes electrons in a conductor in this field to move if they
are mobile enough (= not "tied to" atoms/molecules to rigidly so they can actually move if a field is applied).?
- Why in the electron model, magnetic field convert to electricity ? And why electrons convert
to magnetic field ? If one of them will not ?convert? and stay who it is (with different
manifestations, like electricity for instance) - did not we solved the problem ?
Koen : ?According to Leedskalnin, magnetism is a dynamic flow just like current, so we should
be able to get current directly out of a permanent magnet.
I do not know of any setup whatsoever where current is drawn directly from a permanent magnet,
besides the Magnetstromapparat of Coler (/Cohler), and as far as I know nobody has managed to
replicate that effect.
I aslo do not see Ed doing that, while his dynamic flow model should allow for it??
- In order to make electricity, you need to alternate the poles. So in a static bar magnet, something
needs to be done, to alternate poles, usually it?s a physical rotation. That does not mean it can
be done in a different way and what you ask is the answer to the first OU machine? I wish
I could answer that. I?m not familiar with Cohler, but I?ll look for that.
Cheers
@Rangerover:
- on the subject of the iron "bubble", that is again not proof of anything Ed said,
and it is entirely understandable why a piece of molten iron with current running
through it can and likely will show some form of spiral pattern if the molten iron
is stretched and worked like a glass-craftsman works molten glass.
It is a neat little trick, but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else
in Eds theory.
- there is no "conversion" of electrons into magnetic fields or vice versa.
I thought it would be clear enough the way I put it;
Magnetism is a relativistic phenomenon, that arises when the electron moves
in respect to the observer. The electron does not disappear, nor does it lose
any of its charge. To the electron itself, nothing changes except for its position.
To the observer a magnetic field arises around the moving electron.
Ergo, the magnetic field is a direct effect of the relative motion between observer
and electron, and not in any way a "conversion" of energy of the electric to the
magnetic form.
- yes, if you have one of the two, you don't need the other necessarily.
That is precisely why we don't need magnetic monopoles.
- I completely fail to see what you find so attractive about Leedskalnins theory,
because it does not explain anything that the electron model does not,
and it is more complicated.
What is it that you see in Eds theory that you do not find in the established theory?
So far I only see Eds imaginative but not innovative interpretation of known effects.
And after all his talk and his tests, he finally concludes the same as all those before him:
you can only get current out of a changing magnetic field.
I also get the impression you misunderstood me when I mentioned the static magnetic field.
Just for the sake of clarity: I meant that an electric current, which is moving electrical charges,
in a wire gives rise to a static magnetic field, which is a non-moving set of magnetic field lines.
I was not talking about a static electric field.
Wow, what a fantastic breakthrough. ?
Ok, here's the best test I came up with. Please think it over, see if you think the idea
accords with Leedskalnins ideas, because I keep running into a fact that differs from
Eds view in that I still see no good reason for two opposing magnet flows, but rather I
tend to see it as one magnetic field, ergo flux. So I have to keep reminding myself that
Ed does not use the same concept of flux.
So the test setup I came up with to see if we can use Eds ideas to produce output
(after all, this is the overunity forum ;)) is this:
- Let's take a permanent magnet that according to Leedskalnin emits N pole "magnet" particles
from the magnets N pole, and S particles from the S pole
- put the magnet in a ferromagnetic core that is shaped like a square.
- wind two coils around it, each on a "leg" of the core that does not contain the magnet and
on opposing "legs" to eachother
- take a second magnet and attach that to the side of the core with only the N pole,
so that the two magnets are at 90 degrees to eachother and the N poles are closest
- if need be a second such core can be attached to the other end of this second magnet,
but this time to the S pole, to keep the magnet balanced
If I am not totally off track here this should make for more N particle flow through the core,
which should show more output on the one coil.
But it will probably only work when pulsed with DC, and then it would probably be more efficient
to simply switch the flux back and forth between two "legs" of the core...
A variation could be to use iron wire for the core, and wind it in a spiral manner... But I'm not sure
about that one either...
:)
Koen
Thanks for the test and your thoughts.
Koen : ?on the subject of the iron "bubble", that is again not proof of anything Ed said,
and it is entirely understandable why a piece of molten iron with current running
through it can and likely will show some form of spiral pattern if the molten iron
is stretched and worked like a glass-craftsman works molten glass.
It is a neat little trick, but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else
in Eds theory.?
- The whirling molten iron should indicate that ?something? cause it whirl?. which
I could not understand from your notes, what it is (and would like to hear, if you will).
- If I?m not wrong, it is the molten iron that keeps spinning (and slowing down), due
to the motion of the magnets in the contact point, that ?took? with them small particles
of iron and throw them (together with the magnets) as sparks.
But if there is a better explanation, I would like to listen to that.
- The bubble at the end of the test is approx. 10% of the observations. I wonder if you have
any thoughts about the rest of test (why there is attraction ? Why copper is different then
iron ? Why there are sparks ? Why most of the sparks are thrown in those direction and
not other ? Why a bubble is formed ? Etc.).
- There are many aspects to this little tests and all should fit each other.
By the way, I?m under the impression that your keep rejecting Ed?s model explanations by
saying ?but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else in Eds theory.?
I think the point is not about Black or White - 100% confirmed / 0% confirmed, but if it
make sense or it doesn?t. Like you mentioned before - ?since we cannot see them, we have
to observe them indirectly?, which I?m 100% with you on that. So the point is more about
?could it be that magnets are doing all that ? Or it?s out of question?.
Koen : ?there is no "conversion" of electrons into magnetic fields or vice versa.
I thought it would be clear enough the way I put it;
Magnetism is a relativistic phenomenon, that arises when the electron moves
in respect to the observer. The electron does not disappear, nor does it lose
any of its charge. To the electron itself, nothing changes except for its position.
To the observer a magnetic field arises around the moving electron.
Ergo, the magnetic field is a direct effect of the relative motion between observer
and electron, and not in any way a "conversion" of energy of the electric to the
magnetic form.?
- If magnetism is a relativistic phenomena that caused by the moving electrons, then
how the electron ?bring these twins? ? Or if the electrons are not their parents then
who ?gives birth? here ?
- It sound as the fog from Victoria Falls is caused by the moving water, but the water
are not the ?parents? of the fog?. And after the fog settle down and become water
again, it sound that these water cause by the settling fog, but it is a different entity?..
- So why do we have to re-invent nature, instead of follow it ?
- And if Magnetism was here since the beginning of the physical universe, why a
contemporary culture have to invent new particles ?
Koen : ?I completely fail to see what you find so attractive about Leedskalnins theory,
because it does not explain anything that the electron model does not,
and it is more complicated.?
- If you fail to understand Ed theory, because it does not explain anything that the electron
model does not, so there are a few issues here :
A. They are conflicting each other, so they cannot explain in the same way.
B. This theory does not belong to Ed Leedskalnin, it belongs to nature?
C. This is not about ?which one is right or wrong?, but about ?how things works?, so an
objective point of view is necessary here (which seems to be missing, since 99.9999%
of humanity is already ?washed? by the electron). And if someone wants to re-visit it,
it have to be done from a ?clean? point of view, so it?s not so much about science, but
more about psychology?(at least in the beginning, after that it have to be put to the
test in the most scientific ways).
- The last thing I would say about Ed model - that it?s complicated !!! And I think one of
the barrier to understand it, is that we don?t used to think simple, and simple become harder
to understand?.
Thanks for the test you offered, if you don?t mind roughly sketch it on paper, mail it to me
and I?ll make a nice drawing and put it up to the forum.
Cheers
Koen,
I?m trying to follow your instruction for the test you are offering (though it would
be helpful if you could send me a rough sketch, so I will draw it nicely and put it
up for the forum, so it would be easy for other readers to understand) :
Koen : ?Ok, here's the best test I came up with. Please think it over, see if you think the
idea accords with Leedskalnins ideas, because I keep running into a fact that differs from
Eds view in that I still see no good reason for two opposing magnet flows, but rather I
tend to see it as one magnetic field, ergo flux. So I have to keep reminding myself that
Ed does not use the same concept of flux.
So the test setup I came up with to see if we can use Eds ideas to produce output (after all,
this is the overunity forum ) is this:
- Let's take a permanent magnet that according to Leedskalnin emits N pole "magnet" particles
from the magnets N pole, and S particles from the S pole
- put the magnet in a ferromagnetic core that is shaped like a square.
- wind two coils around it, each on a "leg" of the core that does not contain the magnet and
on opposing "legs" to eachother
- take a second magnet and attach that to the side of the core with only the N pole,
so that the two magnets are at 90 degrees to eachother and the N poles are closest
- if need be a second such core can be attached to the other end of this second magnet,
but this time to the S pole, to keep the magnet balanced
If I am not totally off track here this should make for more N particle flow through the core,
which should show more output on the one coil.
But it will probably only work when pulsed with DC, and then it would probably be more efficient
to simply switch the flux back and forth between two "legs" of the core...
A variation could be to use iron wire for the core, and wind it in a spiral manner... But I'm not sure
about that one either?? - end of quote.
Correct me if I?m wrong :
1. The goals of the test are :
- See if it works w/ Ed?s ideas.
- If there are two opposing streams or one magnetic field / flux (static ?)
- If we can use Ed?s ideas to produce an output.
2. The permanent magnet is rectangular, U-shape or other ?
3. How to put the permanent magnet in a square ferromagnetic core ?
4. How to wind the coil around the square core legs ?
5. Which legs of the core does not contain the magnet ?
6. Attached another magnet N pole to which side of the core (in 90 degrees) ?
7. If we need to attached another such a core, how it attached to the end of the second magnet ?
8. What do you mean by ?keep the magnet balanced? ?
Sorry, if it sound cynic, but it will really help if you can make a small sketch.
* by the way N pole magnets are coming out of the South pole and around into the North
Pole and the South pole magnets are coming of the North pole, around and into the South pole.
In fact the N pole magnets are going up everywhere in the Southern hemisphere (or if it?s a
rectangular bar magnet - everywhere from the middle to the Southern pole.) And S pole
magnets are going down everywhere in the Southern side of the bar magnet :
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0048.jpg&hash=26fe0339055d957eaa777faa9bf1621fc8aec2d0)
Thanks
QuoteSorry, if it sound cynic, but it will really help if you can make a small sketch.
Don't worry rangerover, I didn't understand what Koen was talking about either.
Koen,
While we are waiting for a clearer version of your test (I can help with the drawing
itself, if you need). I have a good idea :
Since we want to find out from an objective point of view what is electricity and what
is magnetism and how they work. Let?s be smart and examine it from two directions :
1. If magnetism is responsible for electricity.
2. If electrons are responsible for electricity (or if electrons exists).
If you agree to that, please bring up a few tests that shows the existence of the Electron,
as an independent natural particle (made by nature) so we could analyze it from an
objective point of view (I could help with the drawings if you need).
I don?t mean ?touch a 220V wire - and see what is an electron?, but a real scientific tests.
Thanks
.... it's like we're two preachers of different religions preaching to eachother...
My view is and was that Eds theory is nice and close but no cigar,
and that it is in my opinion nothing but a different interpretation
of the very same model that uses the 90 degree entanglement of
electric "A" fields and magnetic "B" fields.
So that he is not saying anything new.
I do not mean to say Eds view is completely different,
I mean to point out that the huge difference and the breakthrough
insight that you and some others seem to see between Eds theory
and the established model is not really there.
That is why I keep saying it does not bring us anything new.
I do not really want to keep repeating Eds statements and views
which I think were a good thought experiment for him but are
certainly not groundbreaking insights.
As for the test setup I suggested, I have made a drawing of the idea
and will attach it to this post. I hope it is clear enough.
Please do keep in mind that I am merely trying to come up with
a setup that might work if magnetism is indeed emitted as monopole
particles from the magnet poles, but that is just about the extent of
the influence of Eds ideas on the concept...
By the way, here is a site of a guy who also thinks he has made a
Leedskalnin-ish magnet battery: http://www.lawofmagnetism.com/magbat.html
It has in the mean time been established that what he is getting out
as electricity is just a galvanic current, because he has made a simple
galvanic cell with one of the dissimilar metals being the magnet material.
I don't think this setup proves or disproved that monopoles are flowing from the magnets, does it?
Aaaaargh! ;)
I have asked for someone to post a setup that would allow for testing,
nobody did post any such thing,
now I post something that just might do something if Eds story holds up,
and it's not good enough for you?
The idea behind this setup is that, if Ed is right and electric current is
actually an imbalance in the N and S particle exchange between a magnets
poles, then an intentionally created imbalance where a wire "sees" more
N particles than S particles or vice versa should generate an electric current.
So what I tried to do in the given setup is to make an imbalanced situation
in the core, where the core receives more N particles than S particles while
the particle flow is still in the normal direction.
I used a second core on the other end to do the same with the S particles that,
again according to Eds theory, should simultaneously be emitted from the S pole
while the N particles are emitted from the N pole of the middle magnet.
Standard electromagnetic theory says that this will do nothing.
There is still no flux change according to normal theory, so there is zero induced
current.
Eds theory, if I understand him correctly, says that this will create an imbalance
in the number of N and S particles and this will produce current, if the particles
"swirl" in the same way.
This "swirl" thing is why I suggested trying this setup with coiled iron wires to provide
a spiral path for these alleged particles.
I am not entirely sure if it will work with coils, as I find Eds entire coil story vague in
respect to the exact geometric pattern this opposing monopole flows are supposed to
follow. It may be that it will not work with a normal core and coils around it, but that instead
we should use the coiled iron wire wound directly around the straight bare copper wire...
Ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
Let's try to work toward a testable setup that does show things normal theory does not predict,
instead of working against eachother... ;)
Hi all....
Sorry i've been away but i couldn't get in here for a couple of days?
Koen.....The ideas you are presenting about Ed's notes are good, and in fact similar to my own.
I'll look at your design more....I think i have all the parts.
Ed wrote that "If you guide the N and S pole individual magnets in the right channels they possess perpetual power."
And also..."All that has to be done is to start the N and S pole magnets in an orbit and they will never stop, until the orbit is broken."
When you magnetize a keeper to a U shaped electromagnet, then disconnect the power to the coils...according to Ed the current still flows in the core and keeper, and can be made stronger using larger dimensions.
That is not the view held by current theories, which say that there is no motion inside a closed magnetic circuit.
Magnetize the keeper to the U shaped electromagnet with 1 sec of battery current.....the keeper will never come off, until you pull it off with great force......My keeper is laminated iron, and it can support 20kgs while magnetized to the U bar....It will do that until I pull the keeper off.....the strength of the magnetization will never diminish, even after years, it will hold the 20kgs......
During the time the electromagnet holds the weight...there is almost no external field.
The North and South pole magnets were DISPLACED in such a way so that they no longer come out of the metal as an external field.
When I pull the keeper off, then the energy I put in at the start will come back out of the coils as BEMF, but it can be years between the time i put the current in...and the time i decide to take it out.
In DAVID'S MANUAL OF MAGNETISM it shows that a U shaped magnet stored in a box with a keeper....can actually increase in magnetic strength.
Take the U shaped electromagnet with keeper on it and spin another magnet under the electromagnet....measure the output of the coils.....Take the keeper off the electromagnet, and spin the other magnet underneath again...this time you measure more output from the coils.
When the keeper is removed you get more output in the coils because there is no CLOSED PATH to keep the individual magnets DISPLACED.....so they come out of the U bar and into the coils.
If there is a closed path, then those little N nd S pole magnets will stay in the closed path......some still go out to the coils but many stay in the closed path and do not come out.
Tom Bearden used a closed path.
On Tom's site he shows Gabriel Kron (i think).....He made a true neg resistor...and he mentioned that the secret was to have both open and closed path's simultaneously.
In our U shaped electromagnet and keeper we know we can put the current in and take it out any time we want...but we must use physical force to do it...it has no option of an open path for us to manipulate.
I made a design with a fully closed path, but it also has the option of an open path.
By ANGULAR DISPLACEMENT and pressure the open path is made (theoretically) and then when the pressure is released, the system becomes fully closed...and the angular displacement happens naturally......You open the gates....and they close behind you by themselves...theoretically.
Henry Moray wrote "When a resilient substance is subjected to strain and then set free, one of two things may happen. The substance may slowly recover from the strain and gradually attain its natural state, or the elastic recoil may carry it past its position of equilibrium and cause it to execute a series of oscillations.
Ed wrote "Roll the six little magnets in your fingers...let them loose....then you will see that they do not stay together." page 7 magnetic current.
The faster you displace the N and S pole magnets....the more they fly out radially from the wire.
--------------------------------------------------
One last thing.....Ed did write about static electricity....I'll get to that later...but I think Charlie V may be mistaken there.....I use magnetic needles with my Wimhurst machine all the time, but just to double check I'll run some tests and see.
Scotty... ;D
May I ask what you use magnetic "needles" for in your Wimshurst machine?
As far as I know no magnetic components are needed to make one of those work... ?
QuoteStandard electromagnetic theory says that this will do nothing.
There is still no flux change according to normal theory, so there is zero induced
current.
Actually, it is well known that if you take two magnets and put them in opposition, the field in the region between them will increase. This is how the Halbach array works. The fields add together on one side (doubling the field strength) while attenuating on the other side. In the setup you proposed Koen, the fields at the north end will add and the coils will see an increasing flux as the middle magnet is moved toward the position you have drawn - the same will happen at the south poles. This setup will produce electricity but I'm not sure it proves that there are monopoles.
Koen:
In answer to your long answers to my long post...
"I guess the main problem is the same as it has always been: most people in positions of power are there because they want power, and not because they want
the best for the people. And most people who elect the people in power are too naive to consider that when the time comes to vote. " ...And all the rest..
We are on the same page here. I agree that the cost of petroleum has lead to us not only using for plastics, but fuel as well.... We do need to apply new renewable resources...I agree with the warming but believe it needs to be dealt with reasonably..and without panic...Yes the leaders seem to be thinking of themselves under false pretenses using emotional arguments instead of reason. The uninformed voter falls for it. They did with Hitler, too. And several other comments you made..were dead on..I agree. I realize that scientists have several views and theories on Global Warming...but my concern, and I concur with the Copenhagen Consensus, is that we should spend the $45 trillion dollars being quoted as the cost to cut emissions in half by 2050 should be used to solve problems we really can tackle, such as food sources for the hungry, and better, cleaner resources that are viable, and medical help and education. But you know, much money pork barreled for certain sources usually end up in a rich man's pocket and the rest of us have been "had."
As far as our country..and their complaints on petrol prices...(I'm going to include a couple other issues here)...
I've known for years that our petroleum is cheaper, and so is alot of other stuff around here, such as food and clothing. The average "poor" person here can somehow be collecting welfare, yet still manage to own a tv or two, DVD, VCR, a car, go to the movies, pay $100 to watch some rock star perform, wear GUCCI boots, have their nails and hair done, frequent clubs and restraunts,etc, etc...then complain because of a $5.00 copay on a doctor's office visit. Gasoline is about $4.09 per gallon around here and only doubled the past year from just above $2.00. We are pretty lucky but the problem is people are so used to living it up and they also are credit poor. The average American is like our government...deep in debt. I shudder to think what would happen if we had another Depression. There is no gold standard, either so our dollar is basically worthless. We have way more inports than exports, are leasing road tolls mineral rights, ports and other sources of business to foreign countries, so the control is out of our hands, I've heard some talk about Japan wanting mineral rights to Alaska while our Congress refuses to drill, China drilling off coast of Cuba, Russia arguing over the Arctic Circle with Canada, and of course, outsourcing. You can't even call a company stationed here about a problem without getting someone in India, then they don't understand you and mess up your account (happened to me recently). (Our county is leasing the land to an outside [US] State company to drill for natural gas from the shale. I asked the Surveyor and he said only about 60 people would benefit from the county for the land lease, but it would not bring in economic opportunities to the county...bummer, but that's what happens in some poor countries when companies come in for oil or gold or wood, promising wealth, but they already have their employees so it doesn't help the natives).
I heard a story recently about Rome before its fall long ago (ancient Rome) that just before its collapse, it looked strong to the outsider. USA appears to be strong, but lives beyond its means. We are more than 8.12 trillion in debt (I'm sure it's more now) and the average citizen lives beyond their means. We are trying to solve the problems by Welfare...forget work ethics. Now I remember a few years ago in Denmark that they were having some financial trouble, and the Prime minister (I think) passed something that you had to be in the country (immigrant) for a certain amount of time before obtaining government welfare, or even getting a job. Really, they needed to do that to preserve their economy.
America needs to get people back to work to have an economy. (Don't go by our unemployment rate because that does not include people not collecting or people on welfare, SSI, or living off of someone else.) Money for no work (even when you can) and no developement for trade, then let's take care of the rest of the world by borrowing money from China and giving it to Pakistan, Iraq, etc., does not sound like good investment to me. Not that I'm against working together as countries, you need that for trade, but there needs to be something of value involved here, not just a piece of paper. We need to stop being wasteful, with this "I have the right" attitude and live within our means. (gambling is becoming a problem here too..they take a loan out, gamble it, lose it, take another loan, or borrow, or get a 2nd mortgage, or take someone else's stuff to the pawn shop, gamble again...lose their entire pay check, and credit cards,, their spouse's card, write false checks... but never go for help because "they don't have a problem.")
And innovative options that develope a trade need to be produced here instead of just promising us a "chicken in every pot." Now the idea of every child getting $5000. 00 at birth, that more solar energy would produce more jobs, that changing over to biofuels would solve our dependence on Middle East oil, that everyone having free health care..etc. All sounds good. But first of all, a President does not have the power to "make laws." The Legislature does that. Second of all, health care is never free. Taxes pay for it that a person won't personally.
Budgeting training:
And let me tell you, I managed to pay for my son's hospital bill and doctor bill and spouse's surgery by what is known as "budgeting." And on low income too. Most people don't seem to know what a "budget" is. They seem to think you can just blow all your money on pot and alcohol, then sit back and let the government pay for your bills, or claim bankruptcy, while you complain because they did not do enough for you. Some people seem to be under the misconception that the hospitals all get their equipment for free and nurses and doctors don't need any money to work on. America was under the misconception that there was plenty of oil and it would just last and last and last, so they take long drives (go cruising) and race around like there's no tomorrow. That is changing. A recent report of last month showed a decrease in fuel use.
Now you go to some 3rd world countries and see that they appreciate what help they get because it's not common place. They don't take it for granted. But in rich countries, things are taken for granted and we get this attitude like "it's our right." "It's our right to own and drive a car." It's our right to free healthcare." It's our right to free food and a place to live." Oh really? So does that mean someone can be FORCED to give it to you even if they don't want to become a doctor, farmer, carpenter, etc.? Isn't that like slavery? Don't look at me. This former nurse QUIT! :P And she's not going back. (retraining)
"Take a lesson from the ants..if you don't work you don't eat."
Clinton was correct on his evaluation of our welfare system that people needed to get back to work and off the system. He suggested a 2-year program to retrain the move people back to the work force. I know some woman complained they wanted to stay home to take care of their children. Now nothing against that, I wish I could too. But then they watch TV and go the all kinds of nail parlors, etc, don't know where their kid is...maybe grandma is raising it, get the check, show off their diamond rings and hair extensions to the nurse at the office, unable to answer any questions about the child because..."my boyfriend raises him," and thus "works" the system. I'm sure other western civilizations have some of those "con job" problems too. And of course some really do use the help for their benefit, go to school, and get back to work, even pushing the baby carriage to class with them. (I've done it and seen it). I saw that Germany makes them look for jobs in order to receive government assistance...at least according to a news report. Sounds like they're smart and we're stupid. What do they do in the Netherlands? Any incentives to go back to work?
Same with other countries... they need to have the education and develop trade for themselves to develop,,, and some are. (Costa Rica and their Ecotourism) But just free charity without a plan to develop a manner of self sustainment is not going to work to solve hunger and poverty. But I see instances of exploitation that hurts them and takes advantage of their ignorance and lack of power, instead, especially in Africa and South America. Then of course they end up with a con artist dictator pocketing money leading them, helped into power by western leaders. (Sadaam Hussain was one)
I don't really have much belief in the leadership of our countries.. The people you could depend on, many just don't have the power. And of course people don't really get informed so they vote for the flim-flam, fly-by-night man who gives a pretty speech.
Enough of the soap box, and thank you ahead of time for your thoughts and discussions, this has been very insightful to see that people across the ocean actually have some of the same concerns and ideas, (when you really get down to it). In spite of cultural differences, even. I appreciate your input, greatly.
Beck
Hi again...
I use needles on my Wimhurst to test stuff....but Charlie is mostly right....the needles have a hard time finding a solid pole to stick to on the W machine.
One test that does work is if you put glass on top of the electrodes, and then a needle on top of the glass between the electrodes....the needle will turn 90 deg to the spark that crosses the air between the electrodes...the same as the needles do in Rangerover's drawings.
Here is what Ed wrote about static...
" It can be seen by rubbing hard rubber or glass until they get hot, then they will attract sand, iron filings, salt, and other things. To see how it functions, move a salt crystal a little, if it happens to get on a different magnet pole, then it will jump away.
Another way is to rub hard rubber until it gets hot, then it will be a temporary magnet. The difference between the rubber magnet and the steel magnet is that the magnet in the rubber comes from the magnets that hold together the rubber, and both North and South poles are in the same side of the rubber and the magnet poles are small and there are many of them close together, but in the steel bar the attracting magnet is not the magnet that holds together the steel, but the surplus magnets the circulating magnet that was put in it. Attract the iron filings with the rubber magnet, then approach with the steel magnet. Change the poles, then you will see some of the filings jump away. This means the steel magnet changed the magnet poles in the iron filings, and so they jumped away."
Charlie....I can tell you that if you are skilled in that line of experimentation.....quite novel organic thingamabob's can be made that go for days....but i'm not so skilled yet.
In static they say "Familiarity breeds contempt".
Today I'm leaving my family and going to beat hot metal at the Blacksmith's...but i really would rather stay home with the missus.. :D
Scotty.
Quote from: scotty1 on June 07, 2008, 08:06:47 PM
Another way is to rub hard rubber until it gets hot, then it will be a temporary magnet. The difference between the rubber magnet and the steel magnet is that the magnet in the rubber comes from the magnets that hold together the rubber, and both North and South poles are in the same side of the rubber and the magnet poles are small and there are many of them close together, but in the steel bar the attracting magnet is not the magnet that holds together the steel, but the surplus magnets the circulating magnet that was put in it. Attract the iron filings with the rubber magnet, then approach with the steel magnet. Change the poles, then you will see some of the filings jump away. This means the steel magnet changed the magnet poles in the iron filings, and so they jumped away."
Scotty1:
Rubber? Is this any particular kind of rubber, I mean can you give me an example of something made by it because you said "hard rubber?" This is interesting. I know with some metals you can rub to apply friction and get it to work as a magnet, but did not realize it worked with rubber. This I've got to try. How much friction needs to be applied? What's the best way?
Also, does not the "needle" usually point to the South pole? I know that the so-called North pole of Earth is actually the "magnetic South Pole" and vice versa, but in cartography we just call North...north pole, but I think the Chinese referred to the South and everything cartographic was designed by reference of the "South pole," which is really the north pole, so we western cartographers are backwards or upside down, however you want to think of it.
"During the time the electromagnet holds the weight...there is almost no external field.
The North and South pole magnets were DISPLACED in such a way so that they no longer come out of the metal as an external field."
Now isn't this basically creating a "bond?" Is this like a bond that occurs chemically like Van der Waals or ionic bonds, but in a different level?
beck
Beck,
This is a regular rubber (like car tire, or any hard rubber). I believe it should work with
many other matters (iron, etc.), though with rubber there is good friction and what happen
in the micro scale, is that you break atoms orbits, and that release the magnets which creates
temporary poles. The poles (circulating magnets) since they are crowded together creates what
called ?static electricity? (which as you know can attract hair, salt and other objects).
Though I?m not sure exactly how it works, I understand that Ed wanted to demonstrates gravity
on a micro scale. He say the Gravity is when N & S pole magnets are running side by side (this
is the only way that they don?t attract each other) in the same direction, and since in each atom
there are both N & S magnets - this flow attract everything a head of it.
Though more study is required here.
You are right about the earth North pole, since our compass pointing in this direction (though it?s
a bit off), it?s because South pole magnets streams are coming out of the North pole, on their way
around earth into the South pole. And the same with the compass needle that point South.
That's why the compass needles are attracting to thier opposites poles.
Look at the drawing towards the end of 2nd page of this thread.
Around the PMH there is a weak magnetic field when the keeper is on, since there is all
the time exchange with earth magnetic field and the PMH.
I think that every object that made of atoms that made of orbiting magnets, have a bond
with earth magnetic field, however further study and testing is required here.
Cheers
Quote from: scotty1 on June 06, 2008, 09:34:56 PM
Tom Bearden used a closed path.
On Tom's site he shows Gabriel Kron (i think).....He made a true neg resistor...and he mentioned that the secret was to have both open and closed path's simultaneously.
I happen to have studied what material I could find on Kron, and the related paths of investigation walked by Gray.
Bearden indeed does claim that Kron at some point discovered how to make an actual negative resistor, but that all seems
to come down to a few odd statements Kron made, and that seems to be all the evidence for that idea...
The most important quote there as I recall was something like
"Since very fey true negative resistors exist for use in
the Network Analyser, we use a second circuit, where the capacitances are replaced by inductances, and the inductances
by capacitances, at a fixed frequency.". Bearden seems to find this proof in itself, and I do agree that the first part of
the sentence does seem to suggest a negative resistor was indeed developed, but of course it is not proof in itself.
What I find very interesting is this "second circuit" he talks about. He clearly says that they could not use negative
resistors in the NA, but instead they opted for a second circuit. What did they use this citcuit for? Well, obviously
they were trying to build a negative resistor in order to make the device a self-runner. Instead of using actual negative
resistors, they used this second circuit to achieve as close to that effect as they could. In other words: using this second
circuit somehow made the energy consumption of the entire device much lower.
And in that respect indeed Kron mentions his concept of "the open path", in contrast to the normal "closed path" which
current needs to run. From other notes and documents by Kron it is clear he was in the first place a normal electrical
engineer so obviously his "open path" did not mean there was no "closed circuit" for the current to travel. Instead his idea
was that current as we know it experiences loss because it in fact consists of two components that flow oppositely
and obstruct eachothers flow. So insted of one "closed path" where these flows are forced to flow oppositely through the
entire circuit, he came up with what he called "open path" which was basically seperating the two components and
allowing them to flow along their own seperate paths, thus eliminating their losses.
The way he describes these flows and the circuits suitable and/or used for the conduction of the "negative current" flow
is suspiciously similar to the descriptions of mr. Gray's "cold current" and related ideas.
From the descriptions of the circuits it also seems a large part of the Bedini motor circuits is similar to this basic method.
What it seems to come down to is that apparently a high potential spike can flow through certain inductive parts of a circuit
as the "negative energy" pulse or "current", which can be the opponent flow to the normal current...
I have not worked this out completely yet, but it looks to me like those three inventors were either using eachothers ideas,
or have come up with similar ways to do the same thing using the same ideas.
Quote from: GeoscienceStudent on June 07, 2008, 12:40:54 PM
I saw that Germany makes them look for jobs in order to receive government assistance...at least according to a news report. Sounds like they're smart and we're stupid. What do they do in the Netherlands? Any incentives to go back to work?
Yep. Basically when you lose your job you get assistance to find a new one while you get some welfare, but only if you can prove you are actively applying
for jobs. If you did not have a job and are unemployed for some time, you do get welfare, but depending on the demand for labourers in the region the regional
government may demand you enlist in a work program. Also, if you ask the government for assistance in finding a job, you may not decide not to take the job.
Well, you may, but then you lose your unemployment benefits etc.
Our government used to be very liberal and social, but things have been changing for a while now...
Nevertheless, there are still quite a number of single moms that use mommying as an excuse not to have to work like any other person.
And there are still the remnants of the old hippie anticonformist culture that still think they have a right to bum around...
But the basic idea is that everyone does get some help, but we're not going to pay everything for freeloaders.
... doesn't work very well though, the biggest bunch of freeloaders is in the halls of government itself. :)
just like it is in every country.
QuoteEnough of the soap box, and thank you ahead of time for your thoughts and discussions, this has been very insightful to see that people across the ocean actually have some of the same concerns and ideas, (when you really get down to it). In spite of cultural differences, even. I appreciate your input, greatly.
Beck
Why thank you Beck, I am happy to hear you appreciated the little rant on my part,
and I am also happy to see yet another sane person in the world :D
Hi all..
Koen....I used Ed's notes to show how the radiant pulses can work.
In Ed's work...during the time there is no pressure in the conductor the magnet particles displace themselves so that they try to line up pointing accross the conductor and not along it like they do when there is pressure.....so they turn angularly.
In most A/C it is not noticed because the pressure drops gradually..the magnets turn accross the wire....then they reverse and go the other way.
In a pulse of D/C it is different.....When the pressure is removed suddenly the coil is still full of the N/S pole magnets.
They attempt to turn accross the conductor...like fallen domino's all jumping up to a standing position at the same time....the problem is that as they do it they are still compressed in the conductor...there is no space between the domino's so they can stand up..there are too many of them.
To stand up the domino's need to spread out.
As the magnets turn...they spread out...most likely also because of an increased radius due to sudden release of push/pull force on them.
They turn and spread out so fast that a great deal of them are thrown out radially all around....
The magnets left in the wire continue turning until they flip over, and begin to run along the conductor as current...but they turned and flipped over so fast that the voltage is higher in the BEMF or CEMF or other sudden disruptive devices.
The domino's that were laying down..stood up and fell back over the other way.
Ed said that whatever kind of magnets you send out...the other kind is coming back to you.
Those magnets that are thrown (squeezed) out radially all around attract other streams from infinity...or 10 feet away...whichever is closer ;D
That causes a large disturbance in the force... ;) or the medium or aether or just the magnet streams in general....
It all happens in a very, very short time :o
It's like Moray said...If you put a resiliant substance under pressure and let it loose, it can regain it's natural state, or go past that state (flip over) and go into oscillations.
Gotta go..bed time.
Scotty
Koen:
Quote from: Koen1 on June 09, 2008, 08:04:06 AM
Yep. Basically when you lose your job you get assistance to find a new one while you get some welfare, but only if you can prove you are actively applying
for jobs.
We have that too, unemployment insurance but you have to have been employed for a certain amount of time and the employment has to have certain qualifications.
Quote from: Koen1 on June 09, 2008, 08:04:06 AM
If you did not have a job and are unemployed for some time, you do get welfare, but depending on the demand for labourers in the region the regional
government may demand you enlist in a work program. Also, if you ask the government for assistance in finding a job, you may not decide not to take the job.
Well, you may, but then you lose your unemployment benefits etc.
Our government used to be very liberal and social, but things have been changing for a while now...
They are sounding very smart.(But do they consider prostitution a job you can't refuse? Germany did. ) If you quit welfare here, to go to work, you can't then quit work and get welfare again. However; I've seen some people "above that law." Some even cheat, get their hand slapped, then get the benefits again, but if you're honest, forget it. If you try to work a little because the welfare benefits are not enough to pay the bills, they will strip it all from you, even if you only make a little, less, in fact than the benefit acquired. Say you get child care for free. If you work, you pay, if you don't you get it for free (why moms need childcare when they don't work or go to school, I'll never know). If you work a little more, and the child care is $500.00/month, but you can't afford it so they give you a reduced fee about $35.00 per week, and you still can't put food on the table, and you make about $100/month more, then you lose the child care, even though that doesn't add up. A clear incentive not to work. Don't work, you get everything. Try to take a part-time job for minimum wage, you're stripped of everything, so many just choose not to work. Why bother? Free housing $800/month; free food $1000/month; Free healthcare, Insurance $360/month; Free extra money, $250-$1000 per child/month; depending on state, free child care; $500/month for two children, free transportation in some areas, free lunches for children,$15-$20 per week, some have free breakfasts; free education, $150-$350/year for books; complete grants pell and state for college, $4000/semester and sometimes more, plus they are first in line for scholarships often based on earned income which they have none; and the list goes on and on. Work minimum wage, after taxes make only $800-$1200/month. Figure it up.
Quote from: Koen1 on June 09, 2008, 08:04:06 AM
Nevertheless, there are still quite a number of single moms that use mommying as an excuse not to have to work like any other person.
And there are still the remnants of the old hippie anticonformist culture that still think they have a right to bum around...
We have those two also...
Quote from: Koen1 on June 09, 2008, 08:04:06 AM
But the basic idea is that everyone does get some help, but we're not going to pay everything for freeloaders.
... doesn't work very well though, the biggest bunch of freeloaders is in the halls of government itself. :)
just like it is in every country.
There is a saying...95% of the country works hard for their money...we voted for the 5% who don't and they get all the attention.
Quote from: Koen1 on June 09, 2008, 08:04:06 AM
Why thank you Beck, I am happy to hear you appreciated the little rant on my part,
and I am also happy to see yet another sane person in the world :D
You're welcome. The feeling is mutual, and a relief. I saw a report last year by the UN that UK and USA ranked last in a study on care of children... Seems to me the Netherlands were first, or very close to it. They're doing something right. (Study included healthcare, immunizations, education, family interaction such as eating dinner together, etc.)
Goes to show you can do something that pushes people back to work and putting something back into the economy and society, and it actually will enhance their lives in a general sense. Our recent candidates want to give Universal, healthcare, childcare, college education, $5000 at birth for nothing, and promise all kinds of things I know they can't do. All at the expense of the taxpayer. Thing is, we can't afford it. Health insurance is already affordable if you shop around. $180 per person if you get the minimum which really covers quite alot. One already passed something called "immunizations for tots" and 32 companies quit making immunizations, the cost went through the roof for beginning doctors, (one I worked for just quit giving them) and the problem was not solved. The problem was: We have not enough education programs so people know when, where, and how to get them, a way to monitor that people are immunized, and there is no way to enforce them on home-schoolers and illegal immigrants. The problem now is the same as before but the price went up and only 3 major companies make them, unless some more started up again since that report I saw...which is possible. I saw reports by the CDC that after an erroneous report in 2005 they had erradicated measles, that we had an epidemic of it in my home state in 2006. Home schoolers, I'll bet. It was a religious group and one went over seas and brought it back.
I'm not against home schooling, I do it myself but I make sure they are up to date and offered a copy to the school when they went to trade school.
Children of illegal immigrants do not have to present any documents in many schools and they often stay short term due to parents migrate to follow the jobs. They are not denied full education, welfare, and healthcare benefits. So basically 12 million people get to work, pay no taxes, get full benefits, if they want, until they are caught and sent back home. (Oh, and credit companies made it easy for them to apply for credit, but go figure, how do they check if they have good credit with no SSN? And how do they attach any liens or turn them over to a collection agency with no SSN and no consistant address?) Now that is the problem Denmark dealt with. But our problem is more citizens working the system than immigrants, for immigrants work so much they have enough to send remittances back to their families in their countries. Some of them make around $15.00-$25.00/hr, which is the pay of the college grad. Then 3-5 families may stay in one apartment so they live cheap. They know how to be thrifty.
How come our people are so lazy they won't take those jobs? No those mom's aren't with their kids, they're busy watching "Days of Our Lives." The kid is down the street smoking pot with a child molester who is a pimp looking for young girls or boys to work his corner, and getting shot by a drive by shooter.
Years ago when I was young, I actually had a parent load their kids on me to feed them on pay day because they had spent their welfare check on pot and beer, and the kids were crying because they were hungry. I should have dropped them off at the CPS. But I fed them then put some clothes on them.(What they had on were filthy) A total stranger,... just let their kids go with a total stranger..can you imagine?
(rant...rant.. rant...)
:P
I'll stop now.
Beck
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) - The grander the better ?
Science have it?s own gimmicks from time to time. This one is one of the
larger gambles ever done, in order to figure out the atom?s structure and how
the universe was created (among other new particles that most likely will be
discovered in order to justify 6 billion dollars?).
Like Edward Leedskalnin claimed and demonstrated (through $50 dollars tests),
that the North and South pole individual magnets are the building block of the
universe, together with the NPM (Neutral Particle of Matter).
Since Ed?s notes are too long to publish, I will just bring one section :
?We have North and South pole magnets, positive and negative electricity,
protons, and electrons, positrons and mesons and alpha, beta and gamma rays.
Now why such a confusion? Does nature really need so many things in the
perpetual transformation of things, on building up the matter and again taking
it into parts? I think all that nature needs is three things, the North and South
pole magnets and the neutral particles.
Each kind of those three things can act differently with different speed and
different combinations, and so they can accomplish different results. I believe
the prospective physicists first should learn what magnets and electricity are,
then they will have a sound base for their experiments and their calculations?.
If Ed was right, then all the particles that make the atoms are three types only.
When you thinks for a moment that all these new ?discovered? particles, including
the electron ( http://www.leedskalnin.net/elect-1.htm ) are nothing else but
combinations of N & S pole magnets, then a whole industry of ?inventing nature?
is being revealed in it?s naked form.
The LHC is the next one to ?complicated life?. But this time it was built to
such an extent with such publicity, that no one will stand a chance in front of
this ?washing head machine?, that came to reinforce the fact that science was
right all along about ?how nature is complicated? and made only for scientists
who belong themselves to main-stream and able to repeat the laws of physics
even if you wake them at 3 Am?.
For some reason, there is a thread or a theme since the beginning of the industrial
revolution of ?overcoming nature? and not necessarily by sending man to the moon,
or driving a car on a gasoline engines (which belong to the ?brute power? side), but
more in the lines of ?exploring nature in the name of advanced society?, that must
be fed by science on a daily basis. In other words, we cannot say ?we don?t know
why we have rain or mountains or other phenomenas?, we have a ready made
answer, straight from Wikipedia or other sources literally on everything. The only
thing that left to discover are the Atom and heavens.
Science like many other industries (movies, cars, fashion. etc.) is under a great
pressure to feed the beast, to achieve further, to come up with new products, to
supply new inventions and to cover the bills (all this game cost, as you know?).
The LHC remind me the movie ?Titanic? for some reason (though they spent
only 1 billion on production). Same grand opening, same publicity, great expectations
(will they find the Higgs Boson , or not ?), same glamour and ?selebriticity? (the
personal involved directly w/ the project).
Think for yourself, what if Ed Leedskalnin was right ? Then the whole stunt is
the best comedy ever made, and instead of Titanic we will get the Marx Brothers?
Enjoy the show.
Sorry, but you say "What if Ed Leedskalnin was right?"...
right about what exactly?
There is very little that Ed said that is truly original.
The only thing he really says that seems to be original is his
assumption that opposing N and S monople particles flow
in opposite directions between the poles of a magnet...
And I say assumption because that's what it is: he starts out with the idea
that there must be such monopole flows, and all he does is try and create
effects which could be interpreted as something like that,
after which he jumps to the conclusion that that is obviously what is happening.
If I were to assume "elephanticity" to flow between two "poles" of a conductor,
and I manage to actually measure some form of energy flow using an inductive
device, then I could conclude the "elephanticity" I wanted to prove has now been
proven because I set out to measure it and I did, so it must exist.
But more correctly I should have adimitted that the assumed "elephanticity" is
in fact a fantasy concept which is still not proven, but rather that I merely was able
to measure some form of energy induction in my measurement device. So the
conclusion that an energy flow was measured is correct. But the conclusion that
this proves our assumed fantasy "elephanticity" is not valid.
This however appears to be what Leedskalnin did.
Besides reformulating common and known observable effects of established em theory,
and interpreting them in his own mental model of assumed and unproven monopoles,
Ed never once proves their existence nor does he show uncommon or anomalous
effects that such monopoles should or might be able to generate.
Show me a true Leedskalnin device design or circuit or other type of electrical
setup where Leedskalnins "theory" manages to generate effects that cannot be
explained and understood using electromagnetic theory, and I will reconsider my opinion.
I think the fact that you can keep a magnetic field looped and then release it years latter (without much deterioration) is something rather overlooked in modern science - this is well defined with present theories but just isn't used in this way - that I know of. However, people in physics will tell you that the energy used to power the light bulb when you remove the keeper is not coming from the magnetic field that is being released, it is coming from the energy you exert to pull the keeper apart. I'm not sure I agree with the modern view of how this works, but it is hard to disprove.
The faster you pull the keeper off, the brighter the light bulb will be. The slower you remove the keeper, the dimmer it will be. If you remove the keeper slow enough, the light bulb will never turn on. Thus, physics will tell us that it is the energy YOU are putting into removing the keeper that determines how much energy is produced. If you guys could show that removing the keeper very slowly powered the light bulb just as much as removing it fast, then you would have proof that the energy in the magnetic field is producing the power not the keeper remover.
Ed?s logic is like that :
If magnets are responsible for electricity (by a generator that induced A/C with
two rotating N & S magnets), so two opposing magnetic currents are running from
both ends one against another in right hand whirling motion - this is electricity.
If in a battery the acid dissolve the zinc and two currents (magnetic) are coming out
of the two terminals, that means that the zinc atoms (which eventually dissolved
completely and disappeared) - where made of the N & S magnets. If atoms are made
of magnets, then the whole physical universe is made of them.
The logic with waves and light, is similar : once you figured out that electricity is
magnetcity, and radio waves, radar, sound, UV, IR and other waves that made by
electricity - are actually made of magnets. About radioactive radiation he claim that
these matters, spent much time close to the center of earth and by that absorbed too
much magnetic doses, and when they are on the surface, they release the excess
magnets in order to become normal again.
This is why his tests revolve mainly about electricity and what is actually it is.
Now, look at these tests again http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-7.htm and
http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-6.htm . The running currents magnetized the
fishing wire pieces (call them needles for now), exactly mirroring their motion
Inside the wire. In other words the positive current (which made of North pole
magnets) is going from right to left and throwing the mags across the wire
ONLY IN ONE WAY to the conductor (the needles).
Now Koen, you mention all the time ?so where is the anomaly ?? Well the anomaly
is if the positive (N magnets) will magnetized the conductors exactly the opposite
way from these tests. If you can create such a setting that will do that - then you have
your anomaly, but I don?t think you can do that?(prove me wrong).
Or let me ask you the question : say someone will tell you that positive runs against
negative in opposite direction in whirling right hand motion - What you (Koen) will
set up as a test to test to approve or disapprove that ? Are you going to use magnets
in this test setting ? And if yes or no, please explain.
------------------------------------------------------------
Charley_V, thanks for the insight on the PMH http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-4.htm .
First let me crearify a few things :
1. The PMH (and the keeper) must be made of soft iron, since it cannot hold magnets
and it cannot become permanent magnet by itself. It can become electromagnet as
long as there is induction (from a coil) but once the current is shut off, it cannot
hold magnetism.
2. Hard steel is a different story. Once you magnetize it either w/ a permanent magnet
or electromagnet - it will become permanent magnet (since the N & S magnets ?dams
up? at the ends, since they cannot run so fast as they run in soft iron, so they get?s in
(from their own circulation around the piece of steel), faster then they can get out,
therefore they are ?trapped? in the piece of steel. They cannot pass too fast, since the
atoms of the hard steel are packed close to each other.
3. The nice thing about the PMH, is that it?s made of soft steel which cannot become
permanent magnet unless the keeper is on. Then it?s a magnet, and when you break
the orbit by raising the keeper, some of the magnets go back to the coil and make the
light in the bulb. In simple words - magnetic ?energy? become ?electric?
energy - black on white.
4. According to science, the PMH not supposed to hold electricity in the first place.
5. If you are using hard steel PMH, then you can remove and reattach the keeper as
many times as you want and whenever you do one of the two - you get light. And
the faster you do that, the more voltage output you get (but that?s not what Ed
wanted to show w/ the PMH).
6. There is also an interesting test with magnetic needles hanging above the PMH, to
show the direction of each flow of magnetic currents inside the PMH.
Looking forward to hear your response.
Cheers.
QuoteAccording to science, the PMH not supposed to hold electricity in the first place.
That isn't true. Science will tell you it will hold the magnetic field as long as the magnetic loop path is closed. It doesn't matter whether it is hard steel or soft, as long as the loop is closed the flux will flow in the loop indefinitely. The difference is that hard steel can be permanently magnetized, when you remove the keeper, it will stay magnetized (you will also see the light bulb turn on when you do this). With the permanent magnet case, you can continue to place and remove the keeper and the light bulb will turn on and off every time you do that. This is because you are changing the inductance of the coils when you remove the keeper, a change in inductance will produce a change in flux which equals electricity (look up synchronous reluctance motor - these work on a similar principle).
With the soft iron, it will only work once since breaking the flux path allows the domains of the iron to randomize once the loop is broken. I suppose this is because the the material has no way of maintaining the field without an external source or a closed loop. It can maintain things in a loop but once the loop is broken, the field is no longer self supporting and the domains re-randomize. I find this very interesting and perhaps overlooked. But I wouldn't say that science does not explain this because it does. People have built motors on this principle - the principle of inductance change, which is all removing the keeper is accomplishing. If you wanted to make a generator out of Ed's PMH, I'd stick with permanent magnets which will not lose their flux when the keeper is removed.
If science can explain the PMH, then where is the law of energy conservation
will fit in ? This is a perpetum mobila - which is unacceptable by science.
Even if they think electrons are traveling inside, then electrons have a mass ?
Yes it does = 9.109 382 15(45) x 10-31 kg. So why this mass never stop orbiting
the PMH ? Never slowing down ? If it moves between the iron atoms, then
there it should create friction and slow down, even if it takes several spins.
Another point is, when you induce electricity into a wire, according to science
the streams of electrons moves forward because it is pushed from behind by
pressure. But here inside the PMH once you disconnect the coils - there should
not be any pressure from behind, so what can convinced the electron to move
forward ?
Doesn?t it sound more ?down to nature? that two attracting particles are running
in streams, one against another ? THEY WILL ALWAYS POSSES THE
INHERENTED MAGNETIC FORCE WITHIN THEMSELVES.
Charlie_V said :
? That isn't true. Science will tell you it will hold the magnetic field as long as the magnetic loop path is closed. It doesn't matter whether it is hard steel or soft, as long as the loop is closed the flux will flow in the loop indefinitely?
- Did you mean it will hold magnetic field or electricity ?
- If you meant magnetic field, so what science will say when the keeper was raised and
all (or much of) the magnetic field tuned to electricity ?
I understand that you don?t try to represent science, but an open mind approach.
What I?m after, is showing that no matter how you look at electricity and electron,
it cannot go that far, and cannot ?exists? without magnets (though magnets can exists
without electrons?). The greatest absurd for me, is watching science straggling
really hard and make all kind of manipulations and flip-flops in the air, in order
to keep the electron alive?. But I hope time will tell?.
Correct me if I?m wrong, but as much as I know, science cannot explain it.
Cheers.
QuoteIf science can explain the PMH, then where is the law of energy conservation
will fit in ? This is a perpetum mobila - which is unacceptable by science.
The law of conservation of energy fits into the part that the magnetic field inside the PMH does not do any work. The work, energy, you put into the holder happens when you pull the keeper off. Your pulling the keeper off changes the inductance of the PMH, which changes the amount of flux flowing through the core, which induces a voltage in the coil. Science tells us that the magnetic field inside the core HAS NO POWER. Thus it can flow continuously forever, through things, without losses. I do not fully agree with the magnetic field having no power, I think this is wrong myself, but I'm just telling you what the books say.
As for electrons, there are no electrons orbiting inside the PMH, only magnetic flux. Electron orbiting would be current, and there is no current flow in your PMH. The electrons of the iron atoms are revolving around the atom (like the earth) with a spin that is in unison with the collective bunch, this is how magnetism is explained in materials - quantum spin, look it up. Again I don't fully agree with these concepts but that is what is out there.
QuoteAnother point is, when you induce electricity into a wire, according to science
the streams of electrons moves forward because it is pushed from behind by
pressure. But here inside the PMH once you disconnect the coils - there should
not be any pressure from behind, so what can convinced the electron to move
forward ?
I'm not sure what your talking about here. The pressure your referring to is voltage. If the coil is on the PMH, then when you remove the keeper it will produce a voltage across the coils. However, because the coils are not loaded, no current will flow. If you connect a load (like a light bulb) to the coils, then when you remove the keeper the same voltage will be produced but there is now a place for the current to flow, and it will flow through the light bulb. So, the voltage will be converted into current. If you are talking about after you energize the coils with the battery, then there is no more current flowing in the coils once the battery is removed, however, the magnetic field is self supported by the iron core and it stays. The only way current can again flow through the coils is if you change the magnetic field inside the core - which is what you do when you remove the keeper - or connect the battery to the coils again.
The PMH does not have "electricity", it has a magnetic field. And if you change that magnetic field you will make "electricity". Voltage = (number of coil turns)x(cross-sectional area of the coil)x(change in magnetic field)/(change in time)
The only thing that makes electricity is the change in magnetic field! By removing the keeper, you are making this change so you are getting electricity. After you remove the battery, the flux from the coils is stored in the iron. The flux does not change, it remains constant. Thus, no electricity is produced until you change it - by removing the keeper. Have I mentioned yet that you need to change the magnetic field of the PMH to produce electricity?
Quote from: rangerover444 on July 22, 2008, 10:07:26 PM
If science can explain the PMH, then where is the law of energy conservation
will fit in ? This is a perpetum mobila - which is unacceptable by science.
So it is claimed by Leedskalnin-fans.
But what exactly is moving perpetually, I ask you?
I see a magnet that remains magnetic untill you 'cut the flux lines' by removing
the keeper...
Or is your assertion that magnetism itself equals perpetual motion? Then I simply disagree.
Magnetism is magnetism and it is not at all strange for a magnetic material to
remain magnetic if the flux path is not disturbed. It is also not surprising to see an induced
current in a coil around the magnetic material when the flux path is cut off.
That does not mean those electrons need to be moving perpetually when the flux path
is still intact. The magnetism present in the magnet and the keeper does not require
the electrons to perpetually flow through the coil wire, and they don't.
After all, if they did, you should be able to tap that flow without ever having to remove the
keeper at all, as the perpetual flow should continue...
So in my opinion this is one of the examples of Eds "close but no cigar" ideas,
as his conclusion that there must be perpetual motion going on is not supported
by his observations. No matter how often he repeats his assumptions, repetition
of assumptions is not the same thing as proving them. There is no perpetual motion.
There is magnetism. Yes,
if you take Eds monopole assumptions as a fact instead of
the assumption that it is, then you could formulate an interpretation that concludes
that these hypothetical monopole flows must be perpetually flowing in the material
in order to maintain the magnetism, and this could be interpreted as a perpetual flow.
But that's all just a matter of semantics and unproven assumption.
If we realistically take the assumption of monopole flows as the unfounded assumption
that it is, and consider magnetism as a spin field and not as particle flows, then there
is no "motion" going on at all, there is not "perpetual motion", but yes there is magnetism,
and in a proper material arrangement magnetism can be retained efficiently for a long time,
and when the flux lines are 'cut' the collapsing magnetic field can be 'intercepted' by a coil
in which a current is induced at that moment. So yes, we can use electric current in a coil
to magnetise a body, then keep that body magnetised for a relatively long period of time,
and then collapse the magnetic field and extract the input energy in the form of electrical
current in the coil. But no, that does not prove there is anything moving perpetually.
QuoteEven if they think electrons are traveling inside, then electrons have a mass ?
Yes it does = 9.109 382 15(45) x 10-31 kg. So why this mass never stop orbiting
the PMH ?
Well, like I said, because they don't. There are no electrons
in perpetual motion.
QuoteNever slowing down ? If it moves between the iron atoms, then
there it should create friction and slow down, even if it takes several spins.
Another point is, when you induce electricity into a wire, according to science
the streams of electrons moves forward because it is pushed from behind by
pressure.
Not really. They move forward because of this "pressure" a bit,
but they also experience a "pull" from the oppositely charged anode toward which they flow.
It's a matter of
potential difference. You should know that.
QuoteBut here inside the PMH once you disconnect the coils - there should
not be any pressure from behind, so what can convinced the electron to move
forward ?
Nothing. And, as I said several times already, they don't.
When the keeper is on and the wires are connected to eachother, there is zero flux
change and zero induction, and zero electron flow in the coil wire.
When the flux is changed by removing the keeper, the flux no longer has a neat
closed loop path and the magnetic field collapses, and this changing magnetic field
induces a current in the coil that should be near equal to the current that was used to
magnetise the setup in the first place. So you get out almost what you got in.
That is not surprising because there was no current in the coil during the time the
magnetic field was present, so there was no resistance to the flow of electrons to decrease
the current, and this is why the input energy was not lost. Not because electrons in
the coil magically move forever. Not because of perpetual motion of the electrons.
QuoteDoesn?t it sound more ?down to nature? that two attracting particles are running
in streams, one against another ?
No, it does not. More complex explanations are not at all necessarily more "down to nature".
In fact, we commonly use a rule that is in direct contrast with that statement: Occams Razor.
It sounds more "down to nature" to not invent more complicated systems to explain things
that we can already explain using less complicated systems, unless the more complicated
system actuall managed to explain those things
better and allows us to actually
produce predictions that the simpler system could not produce.
Again I ask you, where is an example of Leedskalnins ideas that cannot be explained
by established em theory, and that does produce a replicable effect which does not
accord with established theory? WHERE? SHOW IT!
So far there are none.
QuoteCharlie_V said :
? That isn't true. Science will tell you it will hold the magnetic field as long as the magnetic loop path is closed. It doesn't matter whether it is hard steel or soft, as long as the loop is closed the flux will flow in the loop indefinitely?
- Did you mean it will hold magnetic field or electricity ?
Obviously Charlie is talking about
flux! That means
magnetic field.
Do you really know what you're talking about if you have to ask what "flux" means?
Quote- If you meant magnetic field, so what science will say when the keeper was raised and
all (or much of) the magnetic field tuned to electricity ?
Well I told you several times above, but here
it is once again: the magnetic field collapses, the coil "sees" a changing magnetic field, and all coils that
"see" a changing magnetic field produce a current and that's what we call
induction. So the
collapsing magnetic field
induces a current in the coil which should be slightly smaller but nearly equal to
the current that was originally applied to magnetise the material and produce that magnetic field.
It's quite simple and has nothing to do with perpetual motion.
Let's try an analogy, perhaps that'll help illustrate what I mean...
When you fill a bottle with water, then put a cork in it, then hold it upside down, the water will stay in
untill you pull the cork out. When you do that, the water will start gushing out the bottle with almost
as much force as you used to fill the bottle. Would you now conclude there must be perpetual motion
going on because an equal amount of water comes out of the bottle as near equal speed, so
something has kept the speed of the water flow constant all the time the cork was on the bottle?
Would you conclude you have captured "perpetually moving water flow" in your bottle?
No of course you wouldn't, that would be silly!
Yet that seems to be what you're doing with the simple coil+magnet+keeper setup... ;)
QuoteWhat I?m after, is showing that no matter how you look at electricity and electron,
it cannot go that far, and cannot ?exists? without magnets (though magnets can exists
without electrons?).
Do you have any sources at all that support this statement,
besides Leedskalnins assumptions? Please show me proof that magnets can exist without
electrons, but not the other way around? Because that is in direct contradiction with
commonly accepted theories. According to the great majority of established science,
what you said there is
not true. So where did you get it?
If that's really what you're after, please show lucidly why and how elecrons cannot exist
without magnets yet vice versa is possible?
QuoteCorrect me if I?m wrong, but as much as I know, science cannot explain it.
Yeah well, as far as I know science can and has explained it... And as far as I know and
can see, Ed Leedskalnin is the one who did not explain anything really, nor did he
prove anything, he just presented and wrote down his own assumptions and interpretations
of his very normal em observations, without actually being very critical about not mixing
his own unproven assumptions into those interpretations and explanations.
If I assume the world is flat, then the rising and settling of the sun could be interpreted as
confirmation of my assumption, since obviously a lamp rising and settling over the surface of
a flat table will show similarities. But that doesn't mean the world really is flat. It just means
that my unproven assumption cannot be taken as a fact if we wish to avoid such stupid
mistakes. So instead of blindly taking the assumption as a fact which it isn't, we should
be smart enough to see that even though there are indeed certain characteristics that appear to
accord with the theory, in fact the entire assumption remains unproven and therefore not
valid as a fact in our path of reasoning. A more correct conclusion would be that there is
indeed such a thing as the rising and settling of the sun over the earth surface, and that this
surface of the earth appears to be flat, but that we can't actually conclude with any degree
of certainty that the earth surface truly
is flat, so we mustn't jump to that conclusion.
It's amazing how many people do, and how excited they can get in their defense and
protagonism of the totally unfounded assumptions Leedskalnin dreamt up.
@Charlie_V: LOL! looks like we just posted largely the same kind of reply in our own words. ;D
Thanks Charlie for your response,
I?m glad your brought up the point of magnetic flux ?filling? the PMH.
Science view magnetic flux in terms of induction, in other words it?s
a ?product? of a magnetic field that move in 90 degrees to the direction
of the filed. Which is not accurate, first it?s the same magnetic field that
?found? a conductor and channel through it. So why calling the first one
Field and the second one Flux ?
Then if we have Flux filling the PMH (and circulating inside), then you
have energy moving through matter (we are talking about EXCESS magnets,
since in it?s natures soft iron cannot hold magnetism), so this excess is not
part of the iron, therefore it?s a free circulating energy, that can perform work
when the keeper is raised and the magnets induced back into the coil.
You said you disagree with science that this flow inside the PMH have no
power, therefore it can circulate endlessly. And you are right, I can build
a 10 ft. PMH, induce it and when you raise the keeper (which may weight
more then a ton), you could get electrified from the ?powerless magnetic
field?. So it does have power, but still orbiting forever. So the law
of energy conservation IS apply here, but it?s BREAKING this law at
the same time?
Also science claim that there is no movement inside the PMH. Well, of
course there is movement. It can be verified with Ed?s test, that you raise
the keeper side of the PMH (it have to lay flat) and above it there are
hanging (horizontally) magnetic needles that swings according to the motion
of the two magnetic stream inside. It?s a very similar test to this one :
http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-6.htm but instead of copper wire there
is the keeper.
And the most obvious thing of all is of course :
1. Magnets where induce into the coil (around the PMH).
2. The coil induced the magnets into the PMH core.
3. Magnets circulate inside the PMH after the coils were disconnected.
4. Magnets were induced back into the coil when their orbit broke (keeper raised).
5. Magnets flew back through the wire to lit the bulb.
Did anyone saw any electrons here ?
What I said about the ?pressure? or voltage inside the PMH, is that science do not
agree the ?electricity? actually run by itself inside the PMH, but like you said
it view it as magnetic field. So there are two funny things here :
1. If a goat is going out of the coral to eat in the field - you don?t call it a donkey.
And when the goat back to the coral, you call it a goat again?LOL.
2. How comes the PMH was induced with ?electricity? and it was orbiting the
PMH, without any pressure (or voltage), after the first induction was disconnected ?
Let me know what you think,
Cheers.
To me, "the field" is the force we call magnetism, what this is exactly, I don't know. I've always found it odd that there are invisible "force fields". To me, "flux" (in particular "magnetic flux" - since there are other forms of flux out there) is the measurement of this "magnetic force field" in a given area of space.
I disagree with magnetic fields having no power and doing no work. In present systems (including the PMH) the magnetic fields are doing no work and thus science is right. The problem is that because no one has developed a system that uses the magnetic power, science has jumped to the conclusion that magnets have no power at all - this is what I feel is wrong. Like I've said before, if you row your canoe on one side only all you'll do is go in circles. If everyone rowed on one side, people would claim canoe's can ONLY go in circles - the trick is to row the canoe on both sides, then you'll really get somewhere.
The "power" that lights up the lightbulb you are confusing with the magnetic field because the field disappears when you remove the keeper. The magnetic field does nothing more than act like a tool, the power lighting the lighbulb comes from YOU MOVING THE KEEPER - just like the power to drive a nail doesn't come from the hammer, it comes from the person swinging the hammer. Get a U shaped magnet, place coils on it just like the PMH. Then take an iron rod, soft or hard doesn't matter, and move it off and on the U shaped permanent magnet just like you do with the keeper. If you have a lightbulb connected to your coils, you will see the light bulb turn off and on, just like in your PMH. The ONLY difference is that the flux in the U-permanent magnet does not go away.
The flux that leaves the PMH you are thinking is being converted into "electricity", its NOT. The flux is leaving for a different reason. If you cut the coils off, then pulled the keeper off, the PMH would still lose its magnetism and no electricity would ever be produced. These devices are only using the magnetic field as a tool (like a hammer or a screw driver), the energy still comes from the operator manually changing the field.
If you want to make this a true perpetual motion hold, use a bar and U-shaped permanent magnet (for both the keeper and core respectfully) and figure out a way that allows you to remove the bar with extremely small amounts of energy, yet still gives a large change to the magnetic field. If you can create a large change in the magnetic field with a very small amount of energy - then you will have an overunity device. This is not as easy as it sounds. You will find that the coils will always try to balance any access energy placed into the system - and all your gains will become 1 to 1 (ignoring losses of course). In all the devices we have today, the change of the magnetic field is directly proportional to the energy put into it making that change (the value is 1 to 1, actually less).
I personally feel that you can create a system that negates this balancing act. I think you can create energy too, but it takes energy to create energy. The main problem science has is that it can't account for the energy that is in the universe. There is the big bang THEORY but that does not explain anything as far as the creation of matter and time. They assume that you can't have one without the other and thus the two can come into existence - as long as they do it together. This is completely illogical since nothing we observe just comes into existence. There is always a cause and effect.
The easier solution is that energy can be created since it is all around us EVERYWHERE in the universe. The main problem with my solution is that no one has observed the creation of energy and everything we do seems to be balanced 1 to 1 if not a little worse. If you really think about the laws of conservation though, really nothing in the universe should exist - since these laws claim there is no ordering in the universe, only disordering. But we can see that there is some order in the universe, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting where we are right now! This leads me to believe that we are in equilibrium between order and disorder. Thus, there is an ordering mechanism conflicting with a disordering mechanism - both are balanced. We know what the disorder is (entropy). What we haven't found is the ordering counterpart. And unfortunately, no one wants to seriously look for it, since it would greatly upset the current foundation of science.
Charlie said :
?The "power" that lights up the lightbulb you are confusing with the magnetic field because the field disappears when you remove the keeper. The magnetic field does nothing more than act like a tool, the power lighting the lighbulb comes from YOU MOVING THE KEEPER - just like the power to drive a nail doesn't come from the hammer, it comes from the person swinging the hammer. Get a U shaped magnet, place coils on it just like the PMH. Then take an iron rod, soft or hard doesn't matter, and move it off and on the U shaped permanent magnet just like you do with the keeper. If you have a lightbulb connected to your coils, you will see the light bulb turn off and on, just like in your PMH. The ONLY difference is that the flux in the U-permanent magnet does not go away?.
Well, when you lift the keeper, the orbit in the PMH is broken and the magnets that circulate
inside - are free to go in any direction they want. But since the two coils are wrapping around
the prongs (in 90 degrees to the motion of the orbiting mags.), most of the mags. will ?drain?
or channel themselves through the coils, since they run much better through copper wire then
air. Though some of the mags. Just will go to the air.
So there is no confusion here, in fact it?s very logical. Your example (w/ the u-shape magnet)
Is missing the point that mags. Can be stored in a soft iron ?ring? and circulate indefinitely until
the orbit is broken.
If you cut off the coils while the PMH is ?loaded? and then raise the keeper, of course no
electricity will comes out, since the mags. Have no channels anymore.
You are right about the U-shape magnet and the keeper - it will posses perpetual motion, but
again, the big deal here w/ the PMH, is to show that the magnets are individual entity that
occupied the PMH until the orbit is broke.
Ed said that the atom works on the same principles, of orbiting N & S pole individual pole
magnets orbiting the NPM (Neutral Particle of Matter) and in acid / zinc battery the acid
breaking the orbit of the zinc atoms and the free N & S magnets are channeling themselves to
the terminals, which are equivalent to the two coils in the PMH.
Also you are right about the OU machine, that by ?moving the keeper? at less energy then the
energy output will gives us perpetual motion. And the reason for that is that whenever you
break the orbit of the u-shape magnet, some of the mags. Will eject away from the system, and
if you have coils around it, naturally these mags will channel through it. But it?s because you
break the orbit, which science described it vaguely ?changing the magnetic field? which is only
partially true.
Charlie said : ?I personally feel that you can create a system that negates this balancing act. I think you can create energy too, but it takes energy to create energy. The main problem science has is that it can't account for the energy that is in the universe. There is the big bang THEORY but that does not explain anything as far as the creation of matter and time. They assume that you can't have one without the other and thus the two can come into existence - as long as they do it together. This is completely illogical since nothing we observe just comes into existence. There is always a cause and effect.?
Well, science have many problems, and the first and for all (the outcome sub-problems) is
that ?IT DEOS NOT HAVE THE RIGHT BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE?.
It literally took the electron and now it dress it with all kind of cloths and shoes, make it
dance Debka, cover it?s face with makeup and BUILD ALL IT?S EXPLANATIONS AROUND A
MODEL? instead of ?BUILDING A MODEL ACCORDING TO OBSERVATIONS? - that?s the
big difference here.
The Big Bang theory is a Big Bluff theory. If science will observe nature, it will realized that
in nature there is a constant transformation, some things are in destruction cycle (matter going
out, like our sun for instance, or when a plant is dying) and other are in construction cycle (basically
everything that growth in this universe, including our planet and my nails?). It?s silly in the first
place to look for a point in time when the universe was created. It?s like to enter a stadium in the
middle of 10,000 meter running race and try to understand where the runners started the race.
even if there is such a place - you cannot tell (unless you ask the spectators) - The story of the
Universe revolves around perpetual transformation - go look for that.
* The visible light is one of the vehicles to transfer matter, but there are more?
Cheers.
Koen, forgive my late response to your post, I will get to that soon.
Thanks Koen for your detailed response,
Koen said : ?But what exactly is moving perpetually, I ask you?
I see a magnet that remains magnetic until you 'cut the flux lines' by removing
the keeper??
I completely understand why you don?t see any movement inside the PMH,
I can also understand why you don?t see any movement around a permanent
magnet, unless you are using detectors or magnetized needles if you will, that
can detect the movement and it?s direction?.So I?m sure you can see it if you want.
Magnetic field - is not a static field, it have two poles, it have circulation between
the poles and N stream of magnets runs against S stream of magnets (look at
my drawing on Page 2 of this thread), and this is part of the misconception.
Koen said : ?The magnetism present in the magnet and the keeper does not require
the electrons to perpetually flow through the coil wire, and they don't.
After all, if they did, you should be able to tap that flow without ever having to remove the
keeper at all, as the perpetual flow should continue??
No one said that the electrons or magnets are moving perpetually through the coil?
It was said that when the keeper removed, then they channel out of the system through
the coil.
If you can tell me how to tap to a perpetual orbit of electrons or magnets, you?ll be the
first? But neither me nor anyone else said that?
Koen said : ?So in my opinion this is one of the examples of Eds "close but no cigar" ideas,
as his conclusion that there must be perpetual motion going on is not supported
by his observations. No matter how often he repeats his assumptions, repetition
of assumptions is not the same thing as proving them. There is no perpetual motion.
There is magnetism. Yes, if you take Eds monopole assumptions as a fact instead of
the assumption that it is, then you could formulate an interpretation that concludes
that these hypothetical monopole flows must be perpetually flowing in the material
in order to maintain the magnetism, and this could be interpreted as a perpetual flow.
But that's all just a matter of semantics and unproven assumption?.
Ed proved that through his tests, not only with the hanging needles over the PMH
but also the way magnets are traveling in the wire.
when you keep repeating ?there is no perpetual motion, there is magnetism?, it explained
your concept about magnetism. So maybe that?s what missing here.
And it is not a matter of semantic, it?s a real life series of tests? Just to clarify :
- do you think there is a circulation in a U-shape magnet ?
- and if you think there is or there is non, can you explain ?
- how do you suggest to prove that (tests) ?
- do you think the "magnetic field" is made of particle, or you view it as one entity ?
Koen said : ?Not really. They move forward because of this "pressure" a bit,
but they also experience a "pull" from the oppositely charged anode toward which they flow.
It's a matter of potential difference. You should know that.?
Good points. What are the opposite charge from the anode, made of ?
How come the electron is the dominant player in electricity, and then suddenly
a positively charged particle comes to it?s aid to cross the wire to the other side ?
In many explanation of potential difference, they bring gravity to help visualized what
it is. It says that when you lift load upward you create ?work? and when a load is
moving down - there is no ?work? happen.
It seems to me that this potential difference idea came only to explain the electron
model, it did not came from observation? It?s like a woman that want to have children
but do not find a husband, so she adopting one?
I?m asking you as a smart man, why nature will create the building blocks of the universe
made of one gender only ? We are not talking here only about electricity, but the whole
universe, that made of atoms, waves, light, living creatures, dynamic relations, life, death,
creation, transformation, destruction.... much more then electricity or magnetism
Put aside all you learned (including Ed?s ideas) for a second and ask yourself this
simple question. Just your common sense.
I will continue to answer your post.
Cheers.
The magnetic field could be made of particles, or it could be a disruption in the substance that we call "the vacuum". The problem I see with particles is that in a homopolar generator, you can have a plate of copper sandwiched between two magnets. If you keep the magnets stationary and you spin the copper, you'll produce a voltage between the center and the edge of the copper. If you spin both the copper and the magnets, the same thing happens. But if you spin only the magnets, and you leave the copper stationary you get nothing.
How does Ed's theory explain the homopolar generator? If the magnetic field were made of particles, then the case of leaving the copper plate stationary and spinning the magnets would of produced a voltage on the copper - shouldn't it? Ed was a smart man and he verified most of the EM experiments that they had been done by 1930 - by himself without training which I feel is a great feat. I welcome his interpretation too, he adds detail to some experiments that get overlooked. Whether he was correct in saying that everything is made up of magnetic particles and neutral matter, who knows and does it really matter? Ed's setups still suffer from back EMF (which no one on this forum seems to ever understand correctly).
Our goal should be decoupling back EMF from the prime mover, not wasting time arguing whose EM field model is most correct. In my eyes they are all wrong.
Take this excerpt I found on a Physics Lecture online:
"Note that the symmetry cannot be "perfect" in that the direction of the current that is induced in the loop due to the externally maintained torque must be opposite to the direction of current that would create a torque in that direction. This is necessary due to energy conservation. If the effect happened as in our first case (externally maintained current), then more current would go through the loop and the induced torque would increase. This violates energy conservation as the change in angular position due to the external torque would induce still more change in angular position. Hence we note that if the effect of induced current does take place, the current must be induced in a direction that opposes the external torque that causes it."
Back torque is NOT due to energy conservation, theres much more to it than this. When people finally open their eyes and see that there is an ordering mechanism in our universe, perhaps they will abandon this stifling law.
koen:
I've recently been reading a book (two actually) that brings up alot of interesting points in oil. I thought I might pass this on.
Hubberts Peak: The Impending World's Oil Shortage
and
After Oil
By Kenneth S. Deffeyes...Geologist, professor at Princeton University, formerly worked with Shell Oil, also known as Dutch Shell Oil Co.
He brings up things as to why oil companies don't necessarily drill in all areas that they obtain permits, and what it takes to have oil, how old it really is, etc. etc. not to mention that US reached its peak in 1970 on oil production and the world in 2005. Using the equation of Hubbert, a geophysicist, it was predicted from mid 1960's to 1970's for the US, and 2004-2008 for the world.
He also explained why the US had lower costs, yet are now starting to rise to reach the rest of the world. Described laws passed and some things some oil companies tried to do to make more money using these laws, unlawfully. Texaco trying to claim that the same source already previously used for oil was a new resource, thus could be sold for the highest bid, for example, when old resources were supposed to be kept at a current controlled rate. Read the book to get the actual explanation. It's full of whimsical manners of explaining things...sense of humor and an easy read. Strange that these two books are our text books for my "Energy" class GEOL-G 400.
He discusses other energy options, but I noticed he did not mention fusion. However, I got some more information and education tools from ITER.
I'm going to have fun this semester writing research papers :) ( I intend to bring up some things being researched on as well as what is considered already in working progress.)
By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this, but a company is buying leases around here for obtaining gas out of oil shale. The land has gone up 6X in tax assessments, and I'm wondering if the two are related. I found out many banks have 100 year mineral rights to alot of the land around here, and due to "Imminent Domain," they could just take it from the people.
Notice the oil pipeline going through Georgia...Russia now in there, US interested, though some of the Americans recently escaped (from Ossetia) said the Georgians were attacking them...then suddenly the interviewer shuts them off...some politician calls the claim "ridiculous..." no one listens ..sounds like pre-Iraq again. A former Marine who had worked for years studying weapons in Iraq kept telling congress there were no weapons and they Shang Hied him. No one listened. They tried to tear him down. I can't help it, but,
I'm a little skeptical here, and hope they diplomatically deal with this instead of getting war happy.
from wikepedia:
" Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years were marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. Georgia began to gradually stabilize in 1995, and achieved more effective functioning of state institutions following a bloodless change of power in the so-called Rose Revolution of 2003.[4] However, Georgia continues to suffer from the unresolved secessionist conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Relations with Russia remain tense over these issues as well as Georgia?s aspiration of NATO membership.[5] As of early August 2008, Georgia is engaged in armed conflict with separatists in the Ossetia Province and the Russian Federation."
Beck
Hmm... :)
Well the Georgia situation is presently more prominent in my thoughts than
the oils shale and other energy solutions except for my own energy research...
It's actually quite scary, even though the world media don't seem to have been
explained this yet so they are only halfheartedly reporting on it.
But the situation is this:
- Georgia has a major pipeline running through it from Russia to Turkey, which
already gives the Russians quite some power in that corner of the world.
- the disputed region is smack bang in the middle of Georgia and clearly the Russians intend
to occupy that so they have full control over the region and over Georgia.
- the Russians started the conflict by shooting down a Georgian fighter jet over the disputed
region, and then they denied doing so
- the Russians have militarily obliterated Georgian defense forces after signing a cease fire
and retreat treaty. They are still mucking about, blowing up military installations, stealing Georgian
radar equipment, and roaming the region.
- the Russians said they responded with "peace keeping troops already stationed in Ossetia",
but when interviewed the tank drivers and soldiers said they had been driving for 3 straight days
to get to Ossetia from Chechnia, which means the Russians apparently knew they were going to
need these "defense forces" in 3 days and gave the order with such great timing that the tanks
actually arrived only half a day after the Georgians invaded and occupied their own rebellious region...
That seems quite impossible unless the Russians somehow knew shit was going to hit the fan,
three days in advance...
And that makes the entire story a bit less credible, don't you think? ;)
- Similar pipeline situations are currently present in Northwestern Europe, which is largely dependant on
Russian gas imports. Which is a risk of course. Just look at what the Russians did to Ukraine asome time
ago: they simply shut down the pipeline when Ukraine complained about the high price. Scary situation.
- Russia has broken with NATO and Bush has been threatening to kick Russia out of the G8 and the WTO.
Scary shit. What is Bush thinking? That kicking them out will make them more lenient? Yeah, sure, that's
something history has shown, right? Not. Or is Bush trying to make the next presidents life a living hell,
by poking the angry snakes that were finally starting to calm down with a stick?
... interesting times, indeed... ;)
Quote from: Koen1 on August 23, 2008, 09:23:45 AM
Hmm... :)
Well the Georgia situation is presently more prominent in my thoughts than
the oils shale and other energy solutions except for my own energy research...
It's actually quite scary, even though the world media don't seem to have been
explained this yet so they are only halfheartedly reporting on it.
But the situation is this:
- Georgia has a major pipeline running through it from Russia to Turkey, which
already gives the Russians quite some power in that corner of the world.
- the disputed region is smack bang in the middle of Georgia and clearly the Russians intend
to occupy that so they have full control over the region and over Georgia.
- the Russians started the conflict by shooting down a Georgian fighter jet over the disputed
region, and then they denied doing so
- the Russians have militarily obliterated Georgian defense forces after signing a cease fire
and retreat treaty. They are still mucking about, blowing up military installations, stealing Georgian
radar equipment, and roaming the region.
- the Russians said they responded with "peace keeping troops already stationed in Ossetia",
but when interviewed the tank drivers and soldiers said they had been driving for 3 straight days
to get to Ossetia from Chechnia, which means the Russians apparently knew they were going to
need these "defense forces" in 3 days and gave the order with such great timing that the tanks
actually arrived only half a day after the Georgians invaded and occupied their own rebellious region...
That seems quite impossible unless the Russians somehow knew shit was going to hit the fan,
three days in advance...
And that makes the entire story a bit less credible, don't you think? ;)
- Similar pipeline situations are currently present in Northwestern Europe, which is largely dependant on
Russian gas imports. Which is a risk of course. Just look at what the Russians did to Ukraine asome time
ago: they simply shut down the pipeline when Ukraine complained about the high price. Scary situation.
- Russia has broken with NATO and Bush has been threatening to kick Russia out of the G8 and the WTO.
Scary shit. What is Bush thinking? That kicking them out will make them more lenient? Yeah, sure, that's
something history has shown, right? Not. Or is Bush trying to make the next presidents life a living hell,
by poking the angry snakes that were finally starting to calm down with a stick?
... interesting times, indeed... ;)
Half hearted reporting...tell me about it. :P
Our secretary of state gave a speech that it was not 1958 when Russia could just go in to a country, cut off major roads and capital and overthrow a government without consequences. When asked about is not that just what the US did to Afghanistan and Iraq, she waffled. This makes us sound hypocritical and most Americans agree, that the Middle East interest to the US is mostly due to ...guess...
OIL! From the way Russia can get their troops ready and their organization capability, the US should be very careful about trying to shake that stick at the snake. We have to him haw a bit in Congress before we get moving and our troops are dispersed and busy in the Middle East right now, and in spite of what some politicians who are in denial keep saying otherwise, our military had been reduced alot during the Clinton years, and is right now stretched to its limits. Scary indeed. Yes, the next president may just well have his hands full. But what occurs here, often has an effect across the world.
Have you seen about the "drills" in Kuwait to prepare against Iran. Several European and UK troops have been sent (armada, they called it) and US troops also. Still being called just a drill presently. I've got a bad feeling about this. Notice, another OIL country.
Yup, oil sucks. Replace oil with something else, people will just find something else to fight about. There have been wars since the beginning and there will always be wars. Whether its oil, land, revenge, etc. there is always an excuse to kill someone. But if you ask me, we should try to develop clean, renewable ways of killing each other. Then atleast the earth will not die with us. :D
The growing demand for new type of energy and the playful thought of antigravity,
produced a new generation of researchers that try to break a part from the ?knows-all?
modern science. These are the trends of today in the science world. On one hand
science keep advancing, inventing and bring proofs that justified it?s existence. On the
other hand the new generation knows in it?s bones, that it?s time to say the truth (that
does not mean anyone found it yet), though whoever is in the "industry", can feel the
?preliminary waves? vibrating already.
?The Theory of Everything? or in scientific language TTOE, are germinating like
mushrooms after the rain and wherever modern science was not able to ?stretched
the blanket wide enough? we can spot many of them around and more to come?
We live with other 7 billion people very much like ourselves. Though it is impossible
to grasp such a number in terms of yourself x 7 billions. We maybe heading all kind of
crises never seen before, like food, energy or natural ones. In a way science is involved
in preventing those crises actively by programming vegetables and food in general, or
facing the next asteroid to hit earth, free energy and many other fields.
Even science cannot resolve our human relations?(let a lone politics) and crises
to come is only part of the story. In fact, the next generations to live here on earth, will
have to deal with today?s consequences. And we as a responsible adults have to stretched
our thoughts to welcome these babies not yet born.
Whether Black Holes exists or Red-Shift is false is important to know, but as an answer
to a global crises - it have no meaning, so it?s importance. Maybe restorations of our small
planet is a safe way to go and everything that can serve this purpose is beneficial (including
knowing of the universe we live among).
Technical solutions for energy crises, land & borders, comforting life in million ways,
new discoveries, etc. - are all temporary and more then that - deceiving. The human physic
is where the territory of the real down to earth solutions lies. In a sense Money become God,
and whoever cannot make much - does not deserve to live (or live in measurability). So looking
for these solution is definitely looking in the wrong direction.
Blaming our corrupted politicians or conspirators are also become part of the past. Not that
it?s not true - but it does not help blaming someone else, it?s time to do something or to think
in a different way that will include our next generations, regardless whom they will be belong
to and whether their parents are our friend and enemies.
Realistically, we have to think 50, 200 or even 4,000 years a head. Even though it may not
match the events to come as we think, but at least it will stretch our responsibility and broader
view, over our contemporary issues. It?s similar to the narrow thought that human is the sole
intelligent being among trillion of galaxies (even before we encounter another inelegance race).
boarding our minds over our temporary existence, while restoring our little planets, can set the
bar for the new science.
Looking beyond the coming oil crises or the recent wars and conflicts will serve much better
purpose and may put in perspective our contemporary status.
Cheers
Sorry to change the subject and bring up Geology matter. I suspect some
phenomena?s in geology have strong ties with magnetism and gravity and
beside that since this thread is about science contradicting itself, I think when
it comes to geology - it?s not about contradicting, but missing the target completely?
When I was young we use to bike a few miles through the fields to a place we
called ?triangulars valley?, so much why ? Since it was like a small canyon inside
a flat plateau that all the ridges and creeks that came down were triangulars. You can see
these formations in their millions around the globe, between mountains, rivers even small
hills have these triangular shape.
Recently when I?m driving in a terrain area, where the natural hills were cut for the
road to pass, I observe a pattern of uplifting layers of soil and rocks, depending on
how the hill was sliced. If you can imagine a flat plateau and then a force from underneath
start to push up, then the layers are tilting in such a way that on one side you can see
the curving up layers (which the top layer become part of the top of the hill) and on the
other side of the hill you can see the sharp cut where most of the uplift occurred.
And that create a triangular shape, of course this is a 2D explanation, since in reality
this uplift or the force from below, can stretched several hundred meters or hundreds
of kilometers. And when it occurs it creates ?sub uplifts? which we called ridges & creeks,
that going down the hill or mountain.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leedskalnin.net%2Fscan0079-2.jpg&hash=6b0e7222d9d30fd294da9eca71f49d8d86122ad2)
The interesting thing is that they all exhibit a triangular shape (give or take), almost
From every angle you look at them. And all these formations have this angled layers of
rocks (if you slice them in the right place).
These are actually very delicate formations, that the Plate Tectonic theory cannot be
accounted for (it?s like pulling out a thorn w/ a boxing glove?). The plates according
to geologists creates huge sections of the earth and by sliding aside (when there is no
evidence of a sideway force that can push a whole plate as one chunk).
But even if it was the case, how a hill 1,000 Km inside the plate could be affected by
the adjacent plate ?collision? ? How these delicate triangular ridges, creeks, mountains
canyons and small hills could be made ?
What pushes them up or pulling them down, that can creates such a fine texture ?
What these forces are made of and how they originated ?
Are there any ?mediums? between the original force the lithosphere ?
If these fine imprints that appears on all the rocky planets and creates these triangular
shapes have something in common ? And why triangular and not other shapes ?
And why do they look like a tree or a fern or lightning bolt from above ?
It is obvious to me that something in our geology went wrong, unless I?m missing
something. Maybe someone can advice.
Cheers.
I can't explain that but I know there is a lot they don't know about. For instance, a few months ago (aka last winter I think) a rift in the ocean opened up a section of earth that exposed the mantle. The article (which was on yahoo news) said that usually these rifts are filled in with magma/lava (whatever the difference is). However, for some reason this one did not and apparently the mantle is made of a hard, solid green substance. They sent an expedition out to investigate it. I haven't heard anything since. But the first thing I thought of was perhaps the green substance was copper oxide or at least a form of metal.
They are currently doing research at some university where they have a 10ft metal ball with a smaller ball inside filled with molten sodium. They spin the balls (one against the other) in order to simulate the earths magnetic field (which in their experiment is generated by the circulating sodium, which is an ion - moving charge produces a magnetic field). However, if the mantle is made of a solid substance - possibly a metal - then they are doing the experiment wrong aren't they? Why do geologists insist the earth's magnetic field comes from the earth? For one, the field changes direction, which a spinning object with moving charge would not exhibit unless the spin changed direction. Why is it so outrageous that the field is induced (like an eddy current) by an outside source (like the sun or perhaps a larger, slower source like the galaxy center)? If the mantle is a giant hunk of metal, it would definitely react to outside changing magnetic fields just like an induction motor. Perhaps the gyration of the earth is not just powered by gravity but by a cosmic induction motor process?
Einstein for instance viewed gravity as a result of masses influencing one another,
which is partially true, but unfinished, since he left several open questions :
How this force forming within the mass in the first place ?
What this mechanism looks like and who are the players ?
Why this force is not made from the same building blocks of the atoms it attract or repel ?
Einstein was not the first or the last to fail to start with the right players. It?s the accepted
scientific system of exploration which in error. It?s flagship of observations, tests,
calculations and conclusions - must use accepted scientific terminology in order to explain
the results. As radical as they maybe, still it have the limitation of communicating the
community in order to be accepted. But what if the most basic particles or energy were
never found ? Or found but not considered basic enough to be the fundamental building blocks,
but just another region of nature.
Then the only ?way out? is to chase the isolated natural phenomenas by keep trying to tie them
together while on the other hand ?discover? newborn solitary ones. This close circle (circus) fate,
is to go forever without reaching anywhere? The irony, is that does not prevent technology to
keep advancing, which means being advance, you don?t necessarily have to understand nature?
These are some scientific discoveries that strongly suspicious of being one and the same,
under different conditions and different combinations :
1. The four fundamental forces : The strong nuclear force. The weak nuclear force.
The electromagnetic force. The gravitational force.
2. The atom structure : protons, electrons, neutron, quarks, gluons, bosons (and more will be found).
3. Waves : UV, Micro, Beta, Gamma, Alpha, X-ray, radio, sound, light (which is a bit different),
Infrared, Electricity, Ultraviolet, etc.
4. States of matter : solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma.
5. Matter & energy.
And more.
Nature is about constant transformations, taking matter into it?s basic elements and build it again.
To accomplished that, not many fundamentals are needed - eventhough it wear many faces?
My point is not find new ?Theory of Everything?, but go back in time from observations
to conclusions, not based on accepted theories, models and terminology, but literally from scratch.
Some courage needed here.
Cheers
Quote from: Charlie_V on August 24, 2008, 10:40:58 PM
a few months ago (aka last winter I think) a rift in the ocean opened up a section of earth that exposed the mantle. The article (which was on yahoo news) said that usually these rifts are filled in with magma/lava (whatever the difference is). However, for some reason this one did not and apparently the mantle is made of a hard, solid green substance. They sent an expedition out to investigate it. I haven't heard anything since.
I haven't heard anything about a rift opening up and eposing a green solid... Do you have a link perhaps? :)
Well, I can't find the article in the Yahoo News section since it is too old. But it was in Yahoo where they said the mantle was a green solid substance - either that or I imagined it. Anywhere here is a link that describes the missing section of crush in the Atlantic ocean.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070301103112.htm
Mr. Wallace Thornhill wrote a very profound and encompassing article, which describe
the approach to gravity over the years and I personally thanks him for his courage, curiosity
and understanding. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
This is what he wrote about Faraday :
Electric Gravity
In 1850, Faraday performed experiments trying to link gravity with electromagnetism that
were unsuccessful. However, his conviction remained: ?The long and constant persuasion
that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather
being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the
possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity
?no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.?[12]
Faraday?s estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are a
number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the electrical and
gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics?they both diminish with the inverse
square of the distance; they are both proportional to the product of the interacting masses or
charges; and both forces act along the line between them.?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a close call by Faraday, but not on target. And the reason for that is that Faraday
?missed the junction? between magnetism and matter by ?bridging? it with Electricity.
In other words, it was and it still today very difficult to find the direct relation between
magnetism and matter. On the other hand Electricity or Charge are much more ?user friendly?
for scientists, to perform tests, since the effects of electricity on matter are much more easy
to detect then magnetism. Also electricity could be made to run as a stream in a wire or
in the air and through other materials and it?s much more manageable then magnetism (which
can ?hardly be controlled?). And the short cut was to turn magnetism into electricity, so further
tests could be done and conclusions could be drawn easily..
In order to respect magnetism, Faraday called it Electromagnetism, since he could not
separate between the two (which no one could do so far). And because of this ?bridge? over
this "junction" between magnetism and matter, Gravity remained a mystery until today.
Even more courage required here, ?to be the one before Faraday?.
Cheers
Are you heading somewhere with this?
And by the way, if it was such a mistake of Faraday to suggest a coupling between
electricity and gravity, then how come the electrogravity effect noted by mr T.T. Brown,
which involves applying extremely high potentials to a capacitor which then effectively
decreases in mass, is real and does work??
And where is the device or experimental setup that does this by means of magnetism alone?
Right. There is none. (Even the Searl Disc involves a rotating magnetic contraption and everyone
knows that spinning magnets produce electrical fields and effects, so that is really an electrical
device as well.) Yet the Electrogravity/Electrokinetic effect has been replicated in several forms
by many people.
Perhaps Faraday was right, and perhaps there indeed is a link between the forces of gravity
and electricity? And perhaps he was not mistaken in calling it the electromagnetic force
at all?
After all, where exactly then is this "bridge" or "junction" you speak of, and where are these suggested
forms of magnetism that cannot be linked to electricity, and what role do they play?
Seems to me that someone is trying to make Faraday look bad for jumping to conclusions,
without actually giving any better or more usefull explanation of anything... ?
But then again I may be missing the point somewhere. ;)
Koen,
No worry, I think Faraday contributes a lot to the exploration in this field, and was an
open minded pioneer. In fact I?m very much in agreement with what he was after :
?The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent,
having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power,
has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection
between gravity and electricity?.
Beside his last twist ?gravity to electricity?, I?m very much in agreement with him.
What I?m suggesting is if he could show that electricity is two opposing magnetic currents
of N & S pole magnets and then show a chemical reaction that produce these two opposing
magnetic currents, then the road to show the tie between magnetism and matter, would be
opened for him.
That does not mean he would figure out gravity, though it would bring him much closer, since
he could pursue the direction of the atom structure that made of magnets. Which make more
sense that gravity (magnetic force) affect atoms that made of magnets.
The T.T. Brown lifter, cannot work in vacuum, which means it works on thrust (at least that?s
what they showed in ?Mythbusters?).
I think you had witness some tests and literature on this thread that shows how electricity is
made by magnetism, or at least you had the chance to do those tests yourself and verified their
result, or maybe you are waiting to see a miraculous device works in a way you never seen
before, well, these are all around you already, but you think they work on electricity?
Cheers
Quote from: rangerover444 on September 01, 2008, 08:05:05 AM
No worry, I think Faraday contributes a lot to the exploration in this field, and was an
open minded pioneer. In fact I?m very much in agreement with what he was after :
?The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent,
having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power,
has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection
between gravity and electricity?.
:) I like that idea too. I just got the impression you
disagreed. Misunderstood you there ;)
QuoteBeside his last twist ?gravity to electricity?, I?m very much in agreement with him.
What I?m suggesting is if he could show that electricity is two opposing magnetic currents
of N & S pole magnets and then show a chemical reaction that produce these two opposing
magnetic currents, then the road to show the tie between magnetism and matter, would be
opened for him.
Ahh, now I see where you're aiming. Yes, if Faraday (or any of the other classical pioneers)
had shown electricity to consist of two opposing "magnetic currents", and if he had shown
these same "currents" to come into play in certain chemical reactions, then he would indeed
have shown the reality of these alleged "magnetic currents", and he might have been able
to link electricity to magnetism via matter interaction in a "magnetic current" model,
possibly allowing for a broader insight into the relations between matter and energy.
But he didn't, nor did any of his contemporaries, nor any of his successors.
Only a few off-the-grid autodidacts have stuck with their idea of "magnetic currents" and
none of them have been able to prove their existence as far as I know. A common
tendency is to use circular reasoning, taking the assumption of "magnetic currents"
as a fact, and reinterpreting very common observed effects in this light. None of that is
actual
proof, it only shows that such a circular argument appears to be sound.
And that is a characteristic of good curcular arguments, but not at all proof of their
validity. ;)
QuoteThat does not mean he would figure out gravity,
Lol I was just going to point that out. :)
Quotethough it would bring him much closer, since
he could pursue the direction of the atom structure that made of magnets. Which make more
sense that gravity (magnetic force) affect atoms that made of magnets.
And that is clearly an assumption. Why do you feel that makes more sense?
Because magnets attract and gravity attracts too? I hope that's not your reasoning here,
as it is obviously not that simple.
I agree that there is a possibility that gravito-electric interaction might be interpretable
in a "magnetic current" model, but the reality of that remains to be proven, and in fact
we should be able to formulate that in a "normal" electromagnetic model as well. After all,
Maxwell did show how scalar potentials are possible using his quaternion-based system,
even though Heaviside mutilated this grand insight after poor Maxwell died. That's why
in the Heavidide-edited "Maxwellian electrodynamics" such scalar potentials are considered
naught since their vectors add up to zero and no effects are measurable with classical
measurement devices. But Maxwell himself did not discount them, he worked out complex
quaternion maths in order to make it more "tangiable". Too bad we are taught fake "Maxwellian"
electrodynamics in our schools; we are actually taught what the mathmatically ungifted
Heaviside managed to understand of his teacher Maxwells genious work. He simply edited
the more complex stuff out when he published Maxwells last book. Scalar potentials and fields
are real and Maxwell knew it. :) If you use scalar electrodynamics, you don't really need a
"magnetic current" model, as it can describe the same thing. Only in normal electrodynamics terminology,
no need for "N pole current" and "S pole current". This is partly what I have been trying to point out
all along: we can "translate" "magnetic current" models into a form of the "standard" electrodynamics
model without losing anything, and vice versa the "magnetic current" models in my opinion are
just a different and by the way very unprecise way of describing such a model which is not really
necessary as the same concept can be included in extended versions of the "standard" model.
QuoteThe T.T. Brown lifter, cannot work in vacuum, which means it works on thrust (at least that?s
what they showed in ?Mythbusters?).
And like is so often the case in Mythbusters, they got it wrong.
Those guys get things wrong more than half the time. According to them, "ice bullets" can never work,
you always get less wet when you run through rain, etc. But in reality, the US army actually developed
ice-shooting guns for arctiv environments, and at least two seperate universities had shown that
on average you tend to get less wet when you
walk through rain, depending on the amount of
rainfall and the size of the drops of course. And those are only two examples. ;)
But to get back to the Lifters, it is a recurring misconception that they do not work in high vacuum.
They most certainly do work in a high vacuum. They just work a little less well. But they still work.
Check it out: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
And please keep in mind that, although that test did not use a perfect vacuum, the high vacuum
of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr they used in those tests is almost as close to the perfect vacuum as we can get,
and certainly comparable to the type of vacuum found in interstellar space. So yes they work in space.
QuoteI think you had witness some tests and literature on this thread that shows how electricity is
made by magnetism,
No, what I keep getting presented are versions of the same old Leedskalnin papers, and
none of that "literature"
shows that electricity consists of opposing "magnetic currents".
Yes, those "theories" do
claim and/or
suggest that that is the case, but there is
still zero proof for them. Yes, you can observe effects and you can claim there are "magnetic currents"
responsible for the effect, but you cannot prove that claim to be true by merely observing the effect.
You should, if the "theory" is correct, be able to
predict the outcome of an experiment based
on the theory, and should if possible do that in such a way that existing theoretical interpretations
did not predict that same effect. Then you may have a theory that is worth more than the old ones.
So far I have seen none of that, I have only seen replications of classical observed effects which
were already predictable using existing theories.
Quoteor at least you had the chance to do those tests yourself and verified their
result,
Yes, and I did, and I verified that they do not show any "magnetic current".
Worse even, I replicated the "magnetic battery" effect and concluded quite satisfactorily
that it does not work if one uses a proper dielectric and that I get similar voltages from
a stack of the same two metals without using any magnets. Funny though, quite a few
believers in the "magnetic current" ideas did replicate the initial setup of a couple of nickel
coated magnets in combination with other metal and a piece of paper, and immediately
see it a conclusive proof for their belief, but hardly any of them go on to the next step
in the empirical process and see if it still works when we use a proper dielectric.
Well if one doesn't see that paper is an ok dielectric for quick and dirty tinkering but
not if you want a
real dielectric, then I feel I am allowed to wonder how much
one really understands of what one is talking about. Oh, and I'm not talking about you here
so please don't be offended, I'm talking in general.
Quoteor maybe you are waiting to see a miraculous device works in a way you never seen
before, well, these are all around you already, but you think they work on electricity?
Really? Can you give me an example? And can you prove, even theoretically, that they work
on "magnetic current" and that electricity does not have anything to do with it? Or are you
just saying that you believe that electricity consists of "magnetic currents" and therefore
all electrical devices are "magnetic current" devices, in your belief?
Yes, I would like to see a design for a device that cannot produce output according to
established electromagnetic theory, but that can do so according to a form of "magnetic current"
theory, and that actually
does work and produce that output.
I have tried to offer a potential design that uses the Leedskalnin "principle" of imbalance
between the amount of "N" and "S" flow by hooking two magnetic cores (with magnets in them)
together with a 3rd magnet as a "bridge", which should, it seemed to me, result in
more "N" flow in the one core and more "S" flow in the other. Coils around the cores could then
"collect" the "excess monopole flow" and should "see an electric current". But that doesn't work.
If you have any design that does work, based on "magnetic currents", and that cannot be explained
by "standard" electrodynamic theory, I would love to see it. If it's not too complicated I will probably
test it. :)
I've heard so many people insist that "magnetic currents" are real, but I have seen zero proof so far,
so if I can build a test device that produces effects that are impossible according to em theory,
but that can be explained with the "magnetic current" theory, then I just have to try it. If I can build it,
that is. ;)
Best regards!
QuoteQuoteThe T.T. Brown lifter, cannot work in vacuum, which means it works on thrust (at least that?s
what they showed in ?Mythbusters?).
And like is so often the case in Mythbusters, they got it wrong.
Those guys get things wrong more than half the time. According to them, "ice bullets" can never work,
you always get less wet when you run through rain, etc. But in reality, the US army actually developed
ice-shooting guns for arctiv environments, and at least two seperate universities had shown that
on average you tend to get less wet when you walk through rain, depending on the amount of
rainfall and the size of the drops of course. And those are only two examples. Wink
But to get back to the Lifters, it is a recurring misconception that they do not work in high vacuum.
They most certainly do work in a high vacuum. They just work a little less well. But they still work.
Check it out: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
And please keep in mind that, although that test did not use a perfect vacuum, the high vacuum
of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr they used in those tests is almost as close to the perfect vacuum as we can get,
and certainly comparable to the type of vacuum found in interstellar space. So yes they work in space.
That has not only been verified by mythbusters (who really are a bad source of verification) but independently by many other researchers including myself. The website you linked Koen1 talked about a lifter set on a rotating wheel - of very low friction. The ONLY reason it rotated was because there were particles in the 0.000001 torr vacuum. These devices use ionic wind to develop their lifting power. Typically in air they require about 25kV to lift (if made of balsa wood and aluminum foil). Reducing the pressure would require higher voltage, hence the 45kV needed to move the lifter in the NASA experiment. If you set that device up so that it was like a standard lifter, it would not leave the chamber ground because the thrust it produced in vacuum is so weak due to the lack of particles. In space, its ability to move would be even worse (since space is 1x10^-14 torr roughly). You might get some movement at 100kV or greater but at some point you would produce field emission between the capacitor plates and then you would have a much different effect causing it to move (basically you would have an ion thruster like what NASA is developing - field emission is very different from ionic movement).
I've never heard or seen an electrogravitational effect with high voltage. If something is moving in a high vacuum due to electricity it is because the voltage is so high its producing field emission at the high voltage terminal and electrons (or metal from the electrode) are flying away from the electrode, imparting momentum to the device as they leave (every action has an opposite an equal reaction). It would be a very slow, accumulative affect but could get a space ship moving pretty quick after months or even years.
Well yes, the power needed to get a Lifter to move by electrokinetics in a
near perfect vacuum will obviously be higher than in air, where there is indeed an additional
ion "wind" effect that assists the Lifters lift.
Point is that many people say "it doesn't work in a vacuum", but the Nasa tests
show it does. Alright, they don't use a true perfect vacuum. But they don't need to,
because the high vacuum they did use is as close to the interstellar "vacuum"
we can get, and the effect did persist, even if the power requirement went up.
They can use it for propulsion.
I never claimed it was a terribly efficient method of propulsion... ;)
As for electrogravity; Darn, I can't find the video now... but perhaps one of our German
friends here has seen it... I saw a clip from a German tv show a number of years ago,
where they had a really simple setup of two identical high voltage capacitors suspended
on either side of a balance scale, in perfect balance, and when they charged one capacitor
with very high voltage, the scale on that side went up a little. The experiment was
repeated and broadcast on one of the German tv stations.
I also seem to recall a story from an old Boeing engineer who described how they dropped
two identically charged capacitors off a building, of which one was highly charged, and
that one arrived on the ground just a moment later than the uncharged one...
But that experiment on German tv stuck with me, I still remember vividly how the scale
went off balance as they charged the one capacitor. :)
That is interesting. Do you know what voltage they were using? I have access to a lab that has 50-100kV power capacitors, I could repeat the experiment. That way I could make sure there was no corona (i.e. ionic wind) associated with the mass change.
HEY Charlie_V,
I THINK YOU CAN FIND WHAT YOU WANT AT NAUDIN'S SITE.
Quote from: Koen1 on September 02, 2008, 08:36:39 AM
I also seem to recall a story from an old Boeing engineer who described how they dropped
two identically charged capacitors off a building, of which one was highly charged, and
that one arrived on the ground just a moment later than the uncharged one...
But that experiment on German tv stuck with me, I still remember vividly how the scale
went off balance as they charged the one capacitor. :)
I READ A THING ABOUT HOW A GYROSCOPE WILL FALL FASTER THAN AN OBJECT OF THE SAME SIZE, SHAPE AND WEIGHT
SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE SPIN-I THINK THE SAME SPIN EFFECT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASYMETRIC(TT BROWN) CAPACITOR EFFECT BUT WITH ELECTRONS
MAYBE A SPINNING OBJECT MOVES THROUGH MORE SPACE-TIME AND FEELS GRAVITY ACCEL.MORE
I KNOW GRAVITY EFFECTS TIME AND SPACE SO WHY NOT THE OTHERWAY AROUND?
ANY INSIGHTS?
@Charlie: I don't recall the voltages used, but I do seem to recall it was charged
using a high voltage power source... I would guesstimate you'd need something
like the Lifter- and Biefelt-Brown voltages, so that's at least 20+ kV.
I have tried to dig up that video on the web but have not been able to find it so far. :(
But I'm sure it must be around somewhere...
Indeed, the capacitors did not have much of a contact surface like the Lifters do,
so one would assume that eliminates most of the ion wind...
If you have caps lying around that can handle such high voltages, and if you have a
simple oldschool balance scale, you should indeed be able to replicate that experiment.
You could even video it and put it on youtube or whatever... ;) meanwhile I'll keep
looking around for that footage.
@Pyrodin: Yes, I seem to recall the same story about a gyroscope falling slightly slower
than an object of the same mass, size and shape... Wasn't that another one of those
experiments done at Boeing?
I have been told that a similar experiment was done using two strong magnets that were
bolted together tightly, while their fields were in opposition, and that object also fell
slightly slower than the control object. I haven't read a source on that claimed experiment, though.
... May be interesting to try and combine the three? So if we make an object that consists of two
opposing magnets, as well as two highly charged plates with a very good dielectric around them,
as well as having the entire setup spin very fast like a gyroscope, would the difference in drop
speed be three times as large too? ;) :)
@Charlie: here's an article from 2000, from Purdue University,
in which they stated quite clearly that the Lifter effect can not
be explained by ion wind, corona discharge, or electrostatic repulsion,
and that more research is needed to explain the amount of thrust
produced by Lifters. This is one of the sources that made me believe
the ion wind is not the driving force, and as I recall also the reason
for Nasa to decide to do their own electrokinetic thruster tests.
Oh, and if I am not mistaken Purdue also did vacuum chamber tests...
The Doc version: http://www.geocities.com/john_goodwind/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc
The html version: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:oggOF-O5tLEJ:www.geocities.com/john_goodwind/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc+purdue+university+electrokinetic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
hope it is of any use. :)
I've built and tested my own lifters. I've actually felt the wind that comes off them. Its the same mechanism that gives a helicopter its lift. Your right, ion movement alone does little to contribute to their thrust. As a matter of fact, it was calculated long ago that the speed and amount of ions would not contribute to any appreciable thrust and for many years the design was abandoned. However, what was overlooked was the fact that those ions impart a large momentum to neutral air molecules - which do not get ionized, only accelerated. Like the wind felt near a waterfall from the water molecules colliding with the air. It is the acceleration of the neutrals that contributes to the increased thrust. Take away the air molecules and the lifting force drops significantly. Take them away all together and there is no more force.
There could be other forces at work, I don't doubt that. But they are very very minute. On the whole, I would say that 99% of the force that allows a lifter to fly comes from the gas that it is in, the other 1% are forces like field emission, PERHAPS electrogravitational stuff (although I've never seen anything like that - but I was never looking either), thermal gradients, etc. Place a lifter in a vacuum and watch what happens, it will just sit at the bottom of the chamber because any force developed cannot lift its weight - to me, that is a significant sign that they need gas to fly. Place them on a frictionless wheel so they don't have to fight gravity, and sure they might spin around a little. But its going to be an extremely weak force because there are extremely low amounts of particles in the chamber. Start bringing the vacuum up to standard air pressure, and you will see they will spin very well!
In NASA's experiment, they had the lifter on a wheel of low friction, suspended. They did not have a triangular lifter sitting on the bottom of the chamber floor. If they had, at 45kV they would of saw no movement. At 100kV they would of saw no movement. I bet that the voltage required to lift the device would need to be so high, you would get breakdown before you reached it.
To sum up, lifters need a gas environment for them to produce any PRACTICAL amount of force.
Well this is sort of what I concluded as well....
... there's hordes of people out there on the web that are convinced
you can actually generate antigravity as in the opposite of gravity,
by electrokinetic/Biefelt-Brown methods.
I'm not sure. I know we can make Lifters and other asymmetrical capacitors
generate thrust in a direction, and I know if that thrust is opposed to the
pull of gravity we can achieve effective lift, but I am uncertain if that
could be considered "anti-gravity". Not really, I think.
Although I guess many people think that any force that opposes the pull
of gravity can be considered an anti-force and thus anti-gravity... But that is
obviously incorrect. An oppositely directed force is not immediately a negative
form of the primary force. Why am I telling you this? You know this. ;)
On a sideline, what remain seem to be reports of masses experiencing slightly
lower drop speeds when they are rotated fast (like a gyro), and possible explanations
suggesting the decrease of inertia in a zone close to and inside the spinning masses.
The TR31b "flying triangle" "UFO" was claimed to be a USAF prototype with 3 swivelable
jets for a high degree of thrust vectoring, and two large rings inside which mercury plasma
is rotated at high speed, in opposite directions. It is said this mercury "gyroscope" setup
generated a sort of field inside of which the inertia was decreased significantly, which effectively
made everything inside the rings lose mass, and made the thing lighter and able to achieve
much higher speeds, without much discomfort for the passengers at all.
How much of that is actually true remains to be seen, but at least it does seem to indicate that
counter-rotating gyroscopes or flywheels may be worth investigating. ;)
QuoteOn a sideline, what remain seem to be reports of masses experiencing slightly
lower drop speeds when they are rotated fast (like a gyro), and possible explanations
suggesting the decrease of inertia in a zone close to and inside the spinning masses.
The TR31b "flying triangle" "UFO" was claimed to be a USAF prototype with 3 swivelable
jets for a high degree of thrust vectoring, and two large rings inside which mercury plasma
is rotated at high speed, in opposite directions. It is said this mercury "gyroscope" setup
generated a sort of field inside of which the inertia was decreased significantly, which effectively
made everything inside the rings lose mass, and made the thing lighter and able to achieve
much higher speeds, without much discomfort for the passengers at all.
How much of that is actually true remains to be seen, but at least it does seem to indicate that
counter-rotating gyroscopes or flywheels may be worth investigating. Wink
I greatly agree. There is a 1970s Christmas lecture (the same place Faraday gave his lectures) on gyroscopes. The most interesting part to me is when the guy placed a gyroscope on one end of a see-saw. If the gyroscope was not spun up, it weighed more than the little weight at the other end of the see-saw. But when he spun it up and allowed it to precess (not sure if the precession was necessary or not), the entire device was much lighter than the opposing weight and the gyroscope was actually lifted upwards!
Perhaps with a plasma you can spin the media up so fast that it would not only become weightless under the forces of gravity, but actually "oppose" gravity (aka generate a force exceeding the mass times gravitational acceleration). You would need a way to negate the precession though - otherwise the passengers would get really dizzy haha.
About what you said earlier, anti-gravity to me is a way of generating a gravitational force that opposes (like two same-pole magnets) an object's gravitational pull. This is different from generating any force that would lift an object. Even if spinning mercury at high speeds did create a lift force, if you turned the device on its side, it would move you horizontal instead of vertical. A true "anti-gravity" setup would probably still produce a lift force (just weakened since it was no longer parallel to gravity). What I mean is, an anti-gravity device would only repel from a gravitational field, if placed in a region of space void of any gravitational lines of force, it would just sit there doing nothing. We don't want true anti-gravity, we want a method of producing a linear force without expelling any substance - an external action generated from an internal action.
ADD: by the way, here is a link to the 1970 lecture I was talking about.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp
Thanks for that lecture, it's an interesting read. :)
As for precesion, I seem to recall quite a number of stories and
claims about two oppositely spinning gyroscopes also showing
decreased drop speeds when dropped as one unit...
... and that would eliminate precession, would it not?
Seems like we may have something worth testing...
Perhaps even worth combining several of these...
So let's see; what if we build a spherical contraption containing
two oppositely rotating "gyroscopes" or plate masses, with
magnets attached to them and in rejection with eachother,
and perhaps even the option to store high voltages on the plates.
And of course another spherical mass that weighs exactly the same
as the test rig when nothing spins and no charges are applied.
Then we could test the effects of these different suggested techniques
seperately as well as in combination, and see how much difference
in drop speeds and scale balance it actually makes.
Idea?
I've been talking to a friend of mine who is also interested in these things,
and we're actually considering building one. Although it's probably going
to be me building the thing when push comes to shove. ;) If time and
funds allow it of course.
Hi guy's.
I was reading this site last night....it covers alot about the gyro's ect...
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm)
I made lots of lifters as well...lifter rep No 276 on JLN Labs... ;D
---------------------------
Koen..you mentioned the triangle U.F.O.....
Some people in my suburb that i know, actually filmed the same type of U.F.O.
It was on the local news so i rang them and went over there and gave them a tape to put the full clip on.
A few month's after that, my stepson went out to feed the dog and called us outside.
To the South of my place was an ORANGE ORB.
I got my video camera to film it, but the result was not so good as the orb was travelling away from me and my camera had to be on full zoom to see it.
On full zoom you can't keep the picture still without a tripod. >:(
I went through my film and found some interesting frames...The orb even dissappeared and re-appeared in the sky....it flickered and pulsed .....it also expanded and decreased in size.
-----------
The best clip is the one with the triangles...there are 2 triangle formations (6 lights)
I have edited the clip to show others without giving the peoples identity away...
Maybe I can put it up on leedskalnin.net
--------------------
A few weeks ago i was playing with dry ice and high voltages (from my wimhurst)
Here is the clip i made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYqX4Y4tVh0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYqX4Y4tVh0)
I got the idea from W Beaty.
Scotty
Rangerover444:
Plate Tectonics involves alot more than just plates pushing around. There are three major types of plate movements: Divergent (pulls away from each other, Convergent (pushes against each other) and Transverse (moves along side of each other) There are variants of lifts that occur also with volcanic or metamorphosis under ground over periods of millions of years, not to mention sedimentation that will cause those layered affects. Then you have to consider the type of minerals the rocks are made of how they will form due to chemical bonds, compositions, and their crystalline structures, such as cubic in halite, galena, pyrite, Dodecahedrons in garnet, octahedral in diamonds, pyramidal in quartz, and so on. Then there is CLEAVAGE determining how they "break or split along closely spaced smooth planes" (Wicander, R & Monroe, J.,1995, p. 45). [The information on minerology has not changed in concurrent geology books but the old one is the one I happened to pull out]. Then you must understand various types of faults and how they are formed such as: Strike and Dip, Folds, [Monoclines, Anticlines ( in which we find alot of oil fields), synclines, Plunging folds, Domes, and Basins],Joints, and Faults, [Dip-slip faults and Strike-slip faults, Oblique-slip faults].
Wicander, R & Monroe, J. (1995). Essentials of Geology. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
I apologize that my information is so general because there is no way with my major in Human Geography/GIS that I can teach what took an entire semester to teach me how these intricate formations occur, I would suggest you get a geology book that covers all the general topics, or take a general geology class.
Here is a link to the ( 4th ed) book, so you can read online for free:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=rQhoyJtPixEC&dq=Wicander+%26+Monroe++Essentials+of+geology&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=-psGW22gIA&sig=2tGn2zI6Lgk3zRYZyKNpFyRJvYY&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1
It's a pretty easy read and a shorter version than the 5th ed. Note: It's only a preview so the pages are limited.
Good Luck!
Now back to petroleum:
About 1/2 half the US imports come from Western Hemisphere, then 16% from Middle East, and the rest from "other" such as North Sea, Asia, etc. 58% of our petroleum is from imports to cover the over 26% of world petroleum use by our guzzling 4.6% world Population. All the new technology we have make us more and more dependent on petroleum. For example: It takes about 3:1 ratio of petroleum product to make a gallon on biofuels. It takes 10 calories of fossil fuel to make each calorie of food in fast food restaurants. Pesticides and agro-chemicals are made of oil, commercial fertilizers from ammonia which are from natural gas. most farming equipment is constructed and powered by fossil fuels. food storage systems (refridgerators, freezers) manufactured by oil-powered plants,run on electricity from gas, & coal fuels, average food is shipped 1500 miles before it gets to a US plate (Canada average is 5000 miles). the production of one pair of cotton jeans takes 3/4 pound of fertilizers and peticides (then energy to weave and sew them). A car takes energy equivalent of 20 barrels (840 gallons) of oil to manufacture, then runs on gasoline. and also consumes 120000 gal of water to produce. each gallon of gasoline requires almost 2 gallons of water to refine (so there is the added problem of using up the only 1% of water available for use and drinking of the world's water supply...1% is the fresh water of the world) The construction of a desktop computer takes 10 times its weight in fossil fuels and one gram microchip takes 630 grams of fossil fuels, plus 32 megabyte DRAM chip consumes 3.5 pounds of fossil fuel and 70.5 pounds of water (during processing they have to be washed at least twice).
Modern medicine, including ventilators, surgery equipment, Swanz Ganz, defibrillators, IV pumps, plastics for syringes, metal for needles,and other equipment take up fossil fuels to make and run the electrical equipment.
Solar panels and Wind turbines take fossil fuels to make, then it takes an average of five square miles of solar panels to make 1000 megawatts of energy. This is do-able in the desert, but not where I live. Solar is only about 10-13% efficient, and wind not a whole lot more (I've seen up to 35% the most, but some research varies). Geo-thermal would be great at the Yellowstone State Park, but the environmentalists would balk because it's a park, but that would not take care of USA (Information from Dr. G. Mason, Geologist, 2008, Sept. 22). Producing one ton of copper takes 17.8 barrels of oil, aluminum takes 20 times higher amount.
Dr. Mason states our only true answer to this issue is in finding new, better technology. The current technology does not hold the answer.
USA hit Hubbert's peak in the 1970's and since then we've climbed in our need for imported fuel sources. We hold only about 3% world's resources but are 4th highest petroleum producer...in other words we are producing and using up all our resources as fast as possible. Imagine if you had 5 apples, to last 5 days, and ate 4.5 of them in the first hour.
Here is something scary:
Two years ago this prediction was made concerning the consequences of Peak Oil in the Chicago Tribune, Paul Salopek: July 2006
"...the consequences would be unimaginable. Permanent fuel shortages would tip the world into a generations-long economic depression. Millions would lose their jobs as industry implodes." (already happening) "Farm tractors would be idled for lack of fuel, triggering massive famines. Energy wars would flare." (think of Iraq/ Georgia) "And careless suburbanites would trudge to their neares big box stroes, not to buy Chinese made clothing transported cheaply across the globe, but to scavenge glass and copper wire from abandoned buildings." (Already occurring in our county, someone stripped the copper from some houses)
"...when the truth can no longer be obscured, the price will spike, the economy nosedive, "(happening here now and we're going into 11.3 trillion dollar public debt bailing out banks and AIG) "..and the underpinnings of our civilization will start tumbling like dominos." "The price of houses will collapse." (happening now here) " Stock markets will crash. "(Stock market is in a panic right now reports say...)" Within a short period, human wealth- the confidence about the future hight among traders--will shrivel." "There will be emergency summits, diplomatic initiatives, urgent exploration efforts, (Congress/ president/ Treasurer doing that now) " but the turmoil will not subside. Thousands of companies will go bankrupt, and millions will be unemployed." " Once affluent cities with street cafe's will have queues at soup kitchens" (people are putting up tents around Utah now...refugees and homeless) " ...and armies of beggars. The crime rate will soar. The earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox." (I know this sounds a little 'doomsday' here, but he hit some good points).
"Democracy will be on the run...economic hardship will bring out the worst in people. Fascists will rise, feeding on the anger of the newly poor and whipping up support. These new rulers" (Think Amadinijad and Chavez) "will find the tools of repression--emergency laws, prison camps"(think Gitmo) "a relaxed attitude toward torture--already in place, courtesy of the war on terror. And if that scenario isn't nightmarish enough, Leggett predicts that 'Big Oversight Number One' --climate change--will be simultaneously making its presence felt 'with a vengeance.' On the heels of their rapid financial ruin, people 'will now watch aghast as their food and water supplies dwindle in the face of a climate going awry.' Prolonged droughts will spread, decimating harvest'" (Salopek, P. 2006)
"If you are focusing solely on the price at the pump, buying a hybrid car, or getting some of those energy efficient light bulbs, you aren't seeing the bigger picture" (Dr Mason, 2008 Sept 22 lecture).
Ken Deffeyes, Princeton professor of geology predicts total economic shut down when oil reaches $300 per barrel, or 15% world's income.
Is Bush administration aware of this Oil production peak ?
The answer is YES! Even the CIA has been aware since the 1977's and now you can find them on website their discussion (now declassified) on the Hubbert's Peak hit the US in 1970's. They have been obviously studying this very carefully for some time. This is from the 1982 State Department report:
"...world petroleum production will peak in the 1990-2010 interval "(goes with Hubbert's Peak geologists prediction was 2005-2008) " at 80-105 million barrels per day, with ultimate resources estimated a t 2,100 billion barrels."
1999 Dick Cheney at Halliburton:
"...There will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010, we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day." (He was wrong..we need more than that)
the nations are currently struggling to pump more than 85 million barrels per day . Dr. Mason describes Cheney's statement as "tacit admission of the severity and imminence of Peak Oil as the possibility of the world raising its production by such a huge amount is borderline ridiculous." (Mason,G., 2008)
Cheney was asked "so where is this oil going to come from." He answered "from the Middle East, of course."
Iraq's Council of Ministers is expected to to supply from thier oil reserves (the 3rd largest in the world) and to private companies. This will be the first time a major Mid East producer has done so...(from Mason, G. 2008 lecture but came from report on Halliburton speech 1999).
Information from lecture: Mason, G. Professor of Geology, IUS, 2008 September 22.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTXlWYdodnc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TyAA90k7gE
buy opec, bleed some, then buy more opec
Because of electricity
Electricity as you know is a flow of two magnetic currents in the opposite directions.
It’s easy to calculate that in order to push an electron through a wire at 20 Amp’s and
220 volts, you need to inject Gamma Rays from the source side of the wire.
Well you cannot calculate it with the term we have (Watts, Volts, Amps, etc.) since
we use these units to calculate back the amount of energy and not checking the
source of the power that drives electricity, since we have no units for that…well sorry,
we have magnetic field which can do the job at much less cost. Some athletic abilities,
like pushing, pulling, spiraling (right hand rule), orbiting, poles forming, will make them
good candidates. Also then we need to start with new units, although it will cross some
measurements and calculations we made.
If electricity is two opposing magnetic currents then they attract each other from a head
of place literally effortless (have you seen any sweating bar magnet from pushing or pulling…LOL).
Although they are also pushed from behind by the pressure of the same monopole’s current,
but that energy quickly replaced by the pull from the other side. That’s the easy way electricity
runs, no need for accelerating rockets behind….LOL
A short reminder what we never detected in magnets : runs as stream of particles, the
particles have either North or South pole (monopoles), can run in different combinations
(opposite, parallel, etc.), and many other features, and that not impossible…
Funny thing about the electron, that is not even a measured unit, since it was invented so
we could measure it and give it life and validity. No wonder we were the first couture
to find it….and even call it a name…..
Now frankly, there is no one reading these lines that is not convinced that electricity is
real, powerful and drives our lives, I too believes like that, but I’m not sure the juice is electrons.
Nothing personal, just thoughts…
Cheers
potato potato,
tomato tomato,
as Shakespeare wrote
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
;)
And was it not the Greeks who invented the word "Electron",
used it as the name for the alloy of gold and silver?
nonetheless I do agree, that the assumption of the particle called
"electron", as an electric monopole particle, is only backed by
observations of its movement and effects of said movement,
and not by true observations of the particles themselves.
But then again, neither is any other particle.
And I hardly hear people complain about that... ;)
Quote from: Koen1 on November 17, 2008, 01:36:51 PM
as Shakespeare wrote
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
And was it not the Greeks who invented the word "Electron",
used it as the name for the alloy of gold and silver?
I love the smell of fresh picked electrons. :D
btw: who did invent the word electron? just curious ;)
Lol :D
Well, er... It was, like I said, the Greeks.
I was just wrong about the exact meaning:
Elektron was the ancient Greek word for Amber,
which when rubbed over animal fur becomes negatively
charged and attracts smaller positively charged particles.
The Greeks already knew this. But it wasn't until 1890 or
so that the Irish physicist George Stoney used and coined
the name electron for a particle carrying a negative
electric charge.
The alloy of gold and silver is called Elektrum. ;)
Ahhh....so the greeks named it, homeboy Stoney made it popular- got it
...... Elektrum.......I like the sound of that word......sounds like the name of a band
and now put your hands together for
"ELEKTRUM"
:D
lol :D
I bet they pay the guitar using a "Pelectrum" then eh? ;) ;D
But really, they could have called "electrons" something completely
different... "neglectons" or "omegas" or "hubbahubbas" or "elephantons",
all would have been fine.
Always the Greeks cramming their words in eh ;) :D