Hi all.
Here is my test on Faraday's Paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8)
It clearly shows that the field does not rotate with the ring magnet.
Cheers
Scotty
Nice vid, and nice sweater, but u screwed up on demonstrating the attraction of the magnets by placing a steel plate between the magnets. The magnets could have been opposing, they would still stick to the steel. None the less, I agree with your results. Just thought i would compliment you in an ass backwords way.
Hi again...just to clarify...
The spacer i used is a piece of wood.....ebony...I use it for guitar making... ;D
You think you make everything clear, but something always skews things...
I'll make a mention of the wooden spacer on you tube as well.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Scotty.
Scotty1, rok on, we all do.
Quote from: scotty1 on September 27, 2008, 07:20:24 PM
Hi all.
Here is my test on Faraday's Paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8)
It clearly shows that the field does not rotate with the ring magnet.
Cheers
Scotty
Ah!
Another convert! Very good.
Yes, You cannot rotate a magnetic field - or flux. Once you understand this there is no paradox.
Ever tried spinning light with a simple lense? That won't work either. I suspect for the same reasons you can't rotate a magnetic field with a magnet.
Don't stop there. There are related actions and results that don't make sense.
I don't know about convert?
I only believe the truth...and the truth is that the field does not rotate with the magnet matter.
Now I want to know how atomic domains that are aligned to produce the field, stay motionless as the mass rotates......that is impossible.
How can the electrons ect or any atomic domain theory explain how the field does not rotate with the matter?
The Paradox remains as far as i'm concerned.....not for me, but for the scientists who use domain theory.
My experiment clearly shows that the magnet field is SOMETHING ELSE, and that the SOMETHING is concentrated in the magnet and flowing through it....
We are all completely submerged in that SUBSTANCE.
The whole universe is too.
"Every living being is an engine geared to the wheelwork of the universe. Though seemingly affected only by its immediate surrounding, the sphere of external influence extends to infinite distance. There is no constellation or nebula, no sun or planet, in all the depths of limitless space, no passing wanderer of the starry heavens, that does not exercise some control over its destinyâ€ââ,¬Ânot in the vague and delusive sense of astrology, but in the rigid and positive meaning of physical science.
More than this can be said. There is no thing endowed with lifeâ€ââ,¬Âfrom man, who is enslaving the elements, to the humblest creatureâ€ââ,¬Âin all this world that does not sway it in turn. Whenever action is born from force, though it be infinitesimal, the cosmic balance is upset and universal motion result."
Nikola Tesla......
" 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?" Nikola Tesla
http://leedskalnin.net/the_cosmic_rays.pdf (http://leedskalnin.net/the_cosmic_rays.pdf)
The truth will come out in the end.
Scotty
Hi :)
I have also rebuild the Faraday disk generator and did many tests with it.
It is because we are working with something we cannot see.
You can however build a device that allows you to hear the lines of flux.
Then as you move the pickup around magnets you will hear it's snapping noise.
Also you can examine electromagnets and listen to the bemf.
Once you hear that sound you will know for sure you heard it somewhere before.
Or was it something else?
It sure sounds the same....
It's nice to put things into the audio or even visible spectrum.
That is like opening a door.
I was also thinking about a chamber with like 1000 hall sensors to create a image of 3D flux but that's a lot of work.
Marco.
Das ist sehr normal, dass der 2 Magnet sich nicht drehen wird.
Egal ob die Ringmagnete sich anziehen oder abstossen , denn
es entsteht keine Reibung oder wechselndes Magnetfeld dass eine Kraft übertragen kann.
Nur wenn jede Oberfläche dieses Ringmagneten oder mehrerer Einzelmagneten als Ringe aufgebaut sind, wird sich das Drehfeld
übertragen. Pese
----------
This is very normal that the 2 magnet will not rotate.
Whether the ring magnets to attract or repel, because
there is no friction or alternating magnetic field a force that can transmit.
Only if every surface of this ring magnets or more than single magnet rings are built, will be the spinner transferred.
Pese
Hi Guy's :)
Here is a short clip about my solid state Farady disk generator. :)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item148 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item148)
Marco.
When electrons move through a magnetic field without flux change, a force will exert on them in the outward direction, creating current.
Faraday's law doesn't predict this, but Lorentz' force law does.
Also, when the electrons travel radially outwards, they do undergo a magnetic flux change.
Quote from: alan on October 29, 2008, 11:27:33 AM
When electrons move through a magnetic field without flux change, a force will exert on them in the outward direction, creating current.
Faraday's law doesn't predict this, but Lorentz' force law does.
Also, when the electrons travel radially outwards, they do undergo a magnetic flux change.
Very well said Alan.
The magnetic field separates the charges in a conductor as it moves through the field, even if the flux isn't changing. When the charges are separated the electric field will exert a force that is either outwards or inwards, depending on the polarity of the electric field. A change in the direction of rotation or reversing the poles will change the polarity. Since the electric field is exerting a force on the separated charges in one direction, the charges aren't able to flow. The magnetic field is not rotating with the magnet at this point.
Relative motion between the disc and external circuit creates an electric field in the external circuit with an opposite polarity to the disc, thus current can flow. The external circuit provides the return path. The electric field on the disc is moving the charges outwards, while the electric field of the external circuit is moving the charges inwards or vice versa, thus current can now flow. At this point, the magnetic field starts to rotate. The more current that is being drawn, the faster the magnetic field will spin. This is the reason for the electric field in the disc to be opposite in polarity to the external circuit, since they are moving through the field in opposite directions relative to each other. This is also the reason for the back torque
When the magnet is stationary, the disc is rotating, and the external circuit is stationary, there is much more back torque in the system than if the magnet and disk rotated together while the external circuit remains stationary. This is due to the magnetic field spinning as you draw current off the disc. if the magnet and disc rotate together, most of the back torque can be eliminated from the field rotating.
Yes, the magnetic field doesn't rotate when there is no current being drawn, but it does rotate when current is being drawn.
Once you draw current off the disc, you are changing how the system behaves, and this change is the magnetic field starts to rotate to oppose this change. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. This is a basic law in nature and it applies here as well.
GB
the mgnetic field doesnt actually "spin". it remains relatively stationary. the disk spins through it.
what happens when current is drawn, is you are generating a change in the magnetic field - along the (curved) radius from the center to the point where the current is being drawn from.
Tesla drew some nice sketches of these lines if you need a visual..
as current is being drawn, this distortion in the field rotates with the disk until it dissipates a small distance after the connection point.
a new distortion generates along the proceeding radii as it approaches the connection.
however, the remaining portion of the field remains "stationary", even while electric current is being drawn.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 15, 2009, 08:27:27 PM
the mgnetic field doesnt actually "spin". it remains relatively stationary. the disk spins through it.
what happens when current is drawn, is you are generating a change in the magnetic field - along the (curved) radius from the center to the point where the current is being drawn from.
Tesla drew some nice sketches of these lines if you need a visual..
as current is being drawn, this distortion in the field rotates with the disk until it dissipates a small distance after the connection point.
a new distortion generates along the proceeding radii as it approaches the connection.
however, the remaining portion of the field remains "stationary", even while electric current is being drawn.
I apologize for the long post and hope it is read.
The magnetic field will remain relatively stationary to itself? That is nonsense, but I do understand what you are implying and it is not correct if you use another disc as the external circuit that extracts current all the way around the axis and rim while using a separate return path between the discs. Of course the disc rotates through the field. The more current that is drawn, the faster the field rotates with the magnet which means the disc is moving through the field at a slower rate and this reduces the electro motive force in the system. The emf in the system separates the charges. If the charges aren't separated, then they can't flow. If they're being separated at a slower rate, then this will reduce the voltage and current in the system.
Let's say the disc is cutting through the field at 5,000 rpm. When current is drawn, then the field starts to rotate, which means the disc is now cutting through the field at a rate less than 5,000 rpm. Increase the amount of current being drawn at a steady rate, and the field will eventually be rotating at the same rate as the disc. When they are rotating at the same rate, then the disc is no longer moving through the field. This happens not only to the disc but to the external circuit also, which causes them to oppose each other.
Why is there more back torque in the system when the disc and magnet don't rotate together as compared to when they do rotate together if the magnetic field remains stationary in each setup? I say it is because the field does rotate when current is extracted.
When the brushes are 360 degrees around the axis and rim, then the magnetic field will rotate with the magnet without dissipating. A slip ring would be best for the axis. The external circuit needs not to be a single wire. It can be another disk. This will double the voltage in the system and reduce the back torque if it's done properly. Tesla even said having brushes which were symmetrical around the axis and rim will reduce the back torque. In fact, both the disc and external circuit can be a single wire......but this would not produce a continuous current.
Tesla used a conductive belt around the rims of the discs on separate rotating axles to extract the current from the rim without using brushes. It can also be done on one axle and using a slip ring on both sides of the axle to extract the current. No need for brushes or a conductive belt for the rim.
This is where relativity comes into play. Try to visualize this. When a magnet is rotating on an axle, which direction is the magnet rotating? If you say CW, then move to the other side of the magnet and you will see it is moving CCW. The direction of rotation the disc is moving through the magnetic field will determine if the current runs from the axis to the rim, or from the rim to the axis. Also the different poles of a magnet will change the polarity of the system.
Now place a disc on each side of the magnet. The disc on the left side will be moving CW through the field, while the disc on the right side will be moving CCW through the field. This will reverse the polarities between the discs. We also have to take into account that a pole reversal will also reverse the polarity. The disc on the left side will be facing a South pole while the disc on the right side will be facing a North pole. Now this keeps the polarities the same on both discs, meaning the current is running from the axis to the rim on both discs or vice versa.......and we don't want this.
We want the current to flow from the rim of the left disc to the axle on the left disc.....then from the axle of the left disc to the axle on the right disc using a single conductive wire as the return path to the right axle....then to the rim of the right disc...then back to the rim on the left disc using another single wire that is connected between the rims for current to flow between the discs. The external wire connecting the axles together is nothing but the return path and provides relative motion between each side for current to flow. This can be done without any slip rings, but that doesn't do us much good unless we were rotating with the system. All we do is to place slip rings on each end of the axles to extract current.
How to do this? There are a few different ways. One way is to place a magnet and disc on one end of the axis, and another magnet and disc on the other end of the disc. The discs will be facing outwards and will be facing the same poles of the magnets. There must be enough distance between the magnets so their magnetic fields don't interfere with each other.
This will completely eliminate the back torque, since there is no relative motion mechanically between the discs or external circuit. It also eliminates the conductive belt or brushes for the rims. It also increases the voltage. The magnetic field in this system may not rotate with the magnet when current is drawn, thus the emf will not drop (this is the only thing I am not sure about, but the rest I am near 100% confident of being correct). 5,000 rpm would be equivalent to 10,000 rpm in a conventional setup. A 10 inch radius of the discs would be equivalent to a 20 inch radius disc in a conventional setup.
Replace the pancake coils in the second image being attached with a conductive coating of copper completely covering the two Halbach Arrays, so both sides are electrically connected for current to flow, similar to how a conductive magnet has a nickel coating around it. The Halbach Arrays must be used in this setup in order to avoid cancellations of the current at the rims. Also the swivel bearings are slip rings. The Halbach Arrays gives a natural design that is similar to the circular UFO's. Also it is possible to do it with an inverted magnetic field, but that is a different setup.
I will work a month for anyone who proves me wrong. I'm not financially able to do this and I don't have the tools and equipment to test my theory.
I need a sign that says, "Will work for a build" instead of "Will work for food". LOL
I am serious about this.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on October 15, 2009, 05:01:19 PM
...
When the magnet is stationary, the disc is rotating, and the external circuit is stationary, there is much more back torque in the system than if the magnet and disk rotated together while the external circuit remains stationary.
...
The fact that the magnet is rotating or not rotating is irrelevant. A field is only defined by scalar values in every space points. As the magnet is rotating about its axis of geometric symmetry which is also its axis of magnetic symmetry, its field remains stationary.
Quote from: exnihiloest on October 16, 2009, 02:51:40 AM
The fact that the magnet is rotating or not rotating is irrelevant. A field is only defined by scalar values in every space points. As the magnet is rotating about its axis of geometric symmetry which is also its axis of magnetic symmetry, its field remains stationary.
It is relevant. There is less back torque when the magnet rotates with the disc. How is that irrelevant? Rotating the magnet while the disc and external circuit are stationary does not produce a voltage or current because neither is cutting through the field. Rotating all 3 together, does produce an EMF, but current is not able to be taken off, because there is no EMF for the return path. This suggests that the field doesn't rotate with the magnet when current doesn't flow. The external circuit is just a part of the disc in this case, meaning the electric fields cancel each other out.
As long as their is relative motion between the disc and external circuit, then it doesn't matter if the field is rotating or stationary (It is irrelevant to have a voltage for current to flow), but that does not mean the field doesn't rotate when current is being taken off (It is now relevant since the voltage will drop). This being a low voltage system, we can't afford this to happen.
The field must rotate when current is being drawn, if not, the voltage wouldn't drop. The voltage drops since the disc and external circuit are moving through the field at a slower rate because the field is rotating. This suggests the field is rotating at a speed that is proportional to the current that is flowing through the system.
I'm going to make this simple. Study this, then it will be clear as day. First thing is to forget about if the field rotates with the magnet when current is flowing or not. Some of the reading will be tedious, but please take the time to visualize what you are reading. Skimming over this will do you no good.
When a conductor moves through a magnetic field when there is no change in flux, the magnetic field will separate the charges in the conductor. The separated charges creates an electric field. The charges are separated, but they're not moving. We need another electric field to move those charges for there to be a voltage for current to flow.
How do we create an additional electric field? It is the relative motion between the disc and external circuit (EC). The EC will be another disc. The relative motion can be the disc moving CW through the field and the EC moving CCW through the field, thus they are counter rotating to each other. Can this be done on the same axis? Yes. This will give us the greatest output to input ratio. If the axle is rotating at 5,000 rpm, then it is the same as rotating at 10,000 rpm since they are counter rotating relative to each other.
When the disc is moving CW through the field at 5,000 rpm and the EC is stationary or 0 rpm, then it is equivalent to the same 5,000 rpm. This gives us half of the output to input ratio that is possible in the system.
When the disc is moving CW through the field at 5,000 rpm and the EC is moving in the same direction CW through the field at 2,500 rpm, then it is equivalent to rotating at 2,500 rpm. This is not a smart thing to do, but it does show how the system works.
When the disc and external circuit are both rotating in the same direction at 5,000 rpm, then it is equivalent to rotating at 0 rpm. This gives us no voltage for current to flow and is the same as the disc and EC rotating together.
There are two ways to eliminate the back torque in the system completely and that is not using relative motion that is mechanical in nature. This means not to have relative motion mechanically between the magnet and disc/EC. Also not to have relative motion mechanically between the disc and EC. This means all three must rotate together.
Now, if you look at the above example, when they all three rotate together, then it is equivalent to 0 rpm and there will be no voltage for current to flow. This is true, but we can use this to our advantage. I'll explain how.
When we put a disc on both sides of two Halbach Arrays with the same poles facing each disc, then we can create relative motion between the discs electrically without there being any relative motion mechanically. I'll go into more details about this.
The disc on the left side of the Halbach will be moving CW through the field of the North Pole at 5,000 rpm and the disc on the right side of the Halbach will be moving CCW through the field of the North Pole at 5,000 rpm when the axle is rotating in one particular direction. This is equivalent to counter rotating to each other. When they counter rotate, this gives us the highest possible output to input ratio available. This is the same as doubling the rpm that the axle is rotating at which would be 10,000 rpm.
Next, we put a slip ring on each disc. Then we connect the rims of the discs together. The best way to do this is to completely cover the two Halbach Arrays in copper similar to a nickel coated magnet. Now we extract the current from the two slip rings. This is using relative motion that is electrical in nature. We have already achieved OU, but we can improve on it.
All we need to do is stack the slip rings, discs, and Halbach Arrays on the same axle and connect the slip rings in series to increase the voltage to the desired level. Prior to this, we already increased the voltage because we doubled the rpm that the axle is rotating at. We have also eliminated all the back torque in the system.
This is a perfect system and is OU, but nobody is listening or paying attention.
GB
ok let me try this again.....
in the example where the conductive surface is touching the entire edge around the disk, several magnetic radii are formed.
these lines are more of "arcs", that spiral outwards from the center, rather than straight radii lines. i'm attaching one of Tesla's sketches at the bottom of htis post so you can see these lines.
this is where the distortion of the magnetic field develops, and is the only part of the field that "rotates".
also, turn your set-up 90-degrees so the disks are oriented in the horizontal plane. then you will see that both disks are spinning in the same direction. polarity does not change the effects, the voltage potential of the north and south disks will be the same with respect to center / outward edges. you can connect them in series to increase the potential, or in parallel to increase the amplitude. both are valid solutions.
the reason there is less back-emf when the magnet is spinning, is because the magnetic distortion is a function of both the magnetic field AND the induced electric field. there is less "magnetic friction" when the physical magnet is also spinning, because it has nothing to "push off of" when the distortion occurs.
thus the experienced "back EMF" is almost solely the result of perpendicular circuit paths through which the current is flowing.
this can be further reduced by bringing all connections off at non-perpendicular tangents to the spinning radii.
suspend a magnetic actuator over the exposed surface of the disk, while it is spinning. you will see "pulses" as each radii passes the actuator. the # of radii that form is a function of the size of the disk and the rate at which it spins. larger or faster spinning disks will form more radii.
heres the image that Tesla drew - he actually suggests the disk be constructed of spiraled segments to mimic these field-lines.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 16, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
ok let me try this again.....
in the example where the conductive surface is touching the entire edge around the disk, several magnetic radii are formed.
these lines are more of "arcs", that spiral outwards from the center, rather than straight radii lines. i'm attaching one of Tesla's sketches at the bottom of htis post so you can see these lines.
this is where the distortion of the magnetic field develops, and is the only part of the field that "rotates".
This won't happen in the system I have described. The current isn't being extracted between the axis and rim. The current is being extracted between the axis and axis. The current will follow the return path from slip ring to slip ring.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 16, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
also, turn your set-up 90-degrees so the disks are oriented in the horizontal plane. then you will see that both disks are spinning in the same direction. polarity does not change the effects, the voltage potential of the north and south disks will be the same with respect to center / outward edges. you can connect them in series to increase the potential, or in parallel to increase the amplitude. both are valid solutions.
The discs are spinning in the same direction as the axle, but they are not spinning in the same direction relative to the face of the magnetic poles. The polarity does change the effects. It's already been tested on this forum by lumen and Yucca. This means if the disc is moving CW through the South Pole then the current will run from the axis to the rim. Disc moving CCW through the South Pole then the current will run from the rim to the axis. Disc moving CW through the North Pole then the current will run from the rim to the axis. Disc moving CCW through the North Pole then the current will run from the axis to the rim. Again, this has already been tested on this forum and the polarities do change and has an affect on the system in a positive way if utilized properly.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 16, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
the reason there is less back-emf when the magnet is spinning, is because the magnetic distortion is a function of both the magnetic field AND the induced electric field. there is less "magnetic friction" when the physical magnet is also spinning, because it has nothing to "push off of" when the distortion occurs.
thus the experienced "back EMF" is almost solely the result of perpendicular circuit paths through which the current is flowing.
this can be further reduced by bringing all connections off at non-perpendicular tangents to the spinning radii.
The back torque can not be reduced by bringing all connections off at non-perpendicular tangents. It doesn't matter what angle your connections are at, and this has been tested on this forum also. Shielding has no affect either.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 16, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
heres the image that Tesla drew - he actually suggests the disk be constructed of spiraled segments to mimic these field-lines.
Again, this doesn't apply to the setup I described since the current isn't extracted from the axis and rim, thus there is no spiraled field-lines, arced radii, etc.
The setup I described is not a conventional HPG. It is designed to defeat the back torque, to eliminate the brushes or conductive belt on the rim, to increase the voltage, and the issues with polarity of the electric fields, etc.
This setup takes every possible advantage and exploits it to the fullest potential possible.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 16, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
also, turn your set-up 90-degrees so the disks are oriented in the horizontal plane. then you will see that both disks are spinning in the same direction. polarity does not change the effects, the voltage potential of the north and south disks will be the same with respect to center / outward edges. you can connect them in series to increase the potential, or in parallel to increase the amplitude. both are valid solutions.
Do you realize how difficult it would be to try and connect them in series using brushes when the voltage potential of the north and south discs are the same with respect to the center / outward edges. It would be an engineering nightmare. This is the reason for the north and south discs to have a voltage potential that is opposite in polarity with respect to the center / outward edges so they are naturally in series with each other avoiding the huge losses associated with brushes and the complexity of running those brushes in seres in addition to the costs of building a system such as that.
Why complicate things when there are better ways. The thing you don't understand is the voltage potential of the north and south discs are different in respect to the center / outward edges so they are naturally in series. You can't do it when both discs are facing opposite poles when they are on the same axis without spending a lifetime to achieve it. This is the reason for the two Halbach Arrays or to have two magnets which are separated with enough distance so there magnetic fields don't interfere with each other. Since the discs are on opposite sides of the magnet (the two magnets must be looked at as being a single magnet, then you will see that the two discs are on the opposite sides and will be moving through the field in opposite directions relative to each other), then both discs must rotate through the same pole in order to have a voltage potential that is opposite to each other in respect to the center and outer edges.
Yucca tested that when a disc is on both sides of the magnet, and each disc is facing a different pole, then the voltage potential will be the same on both discs in regards to center and outward edges. If the magnet was a monopole magnet where both sides had the same poles, then the voltage potential would be opposite in regards to the axis and rim. This is the reason why the north and south magnets must be looked at as being a single magnet. The only difference is the distance separating them. Two Halbach Arrays with the same poles facing outwards is a better choice, but is not necessary to prove this.
Here is lumen's video demonstrating how a change in the direction of rotation will change the voltage potential with respect to the center / outward edges. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w . To save time, you can start watching at the 4 minute mark of the video, then you will see how the polarity of the system changes with respect to the direction of rotation. Changing the poles the disc is moving through will also change the polarity.
All attempts to connect the rim in series to increase the voltage has failed. There is good reason for this, and that is the lack of understanding how the system works or how to utilize the system to it's fullest potential.
When you have two Halbach Array's with the same poles facing outwards that is sandwiched between two discs, one disc is moving through the field in the opposite direction as the other disc. This is the same as having two counter rotating discs which is the same as doubling the rpm. This is increasing the relative motion between the two discs, and is the same as counter rotating to each other. Increasing the rpm is already proven to increase the voltage.
Also, each disc is rotating. This means both discs will be cutting through the magnetic field. This is the same as doubling the radii of the disc and magnet. When one is rotating and the other is stationary in the conventional setups, then the one which is stationary is not moving through the magnetic field of the magnet. Increasing the radii of the disc and magnets is already proven to increase the voltage.
The two Halbach Arrays will increase the strength of the magnetic field that is not canceled which the discs will be moving through. The strength of the magnetic field is already proven to increase the voltage.
Stacking them on the same axle where they are connected in series with the proper configuration will increase the voltage since they are actually separate systems meaning each will have there own potential. This would be equivalent to connecting many separate HPG's in series, which just happens to be on the same axle and operating on the same input power. Connecting many separate HPG's in series is also proven to increase the voltage.
The homopolar's power output goes up by the 4th power of increases in the rotor radius while its input power requirement goes up by the square thereof. This is evidence of mechanical over unity. This is also already proven. This means stacking them in series on the same axle will provide more power output than the input requirements if done properly. This can not be done in the conventional setups even if stacked on the same axle, since it's not utilizing the system properly to it's fullest potential while exploiting everything I have mentioned above. The system I have described is doing just that, and the output to input ratio will hold.
This should convert the mechanical OU properties of the HPG into electrical OU.
I am not here to spread misinformation or to mislead anyone. The system I have described is inline with everything that is known about HPG.
Take care,
GB
There was a guy on this forum (BWS), not sure if he still follows this forum or not, but he bolted two huge magnets together with their like poles facing each other and discs on each side. He had a patent on this along with another patent where he was trying to saturate the discs so they could be connected in series with brushes. The two magnets with like poles facing each other created a radial magnetic field in the middle on the rims. This is the reason to keep the magnets separated or to use two Halbach Arrays.
Then he tried to extract the current between the axis and rim. He got what he called cross voltage. Now, think about this. The discs on each side of the magnet is already connected in series and is acting as a single entity with a voltage potential between the axis and axis of the discs, with the radial magnetic field on the rims interfering with this potential.
When he tried to extract the current between the axis and rim with a stationary external circuit, this created a voltage potential that was opposite to the single entity, thus the cross voltage and defeating what he was trying to do.
He actually had 4 different voltage potentials in the system. A voltage potential between the axis and axis which canceled each other out on one side of the disc since there was no return path to the other side while the radial field on the rims interfered with this potential, a voltage potential on one side of the disc from the axis to rim, on the other side of the disc from the rim to the axis, and another voltage potential between the axis and rim of the external circuit.
If he would have put slip rings on each side of the magnet, kept the magnets separated where their fields didn't interfere with each other and didn't create a radial magnetic field on the circumference of the discs, then extracted the current between the slip rings...... then the current would have flowed from one side of the disc to the other side without the cross voltage. The wire connecting the two slip rings together would have created the other voltage potential that was in series between the axis and axis allowing current to flow with no cross voltage.
He understood how the polarity could be changed in regards to the center and outer edges, but he didn't understand properly how the stationary external circuit between the axis and rim would create relative motion between the disc and external circuit which would create an additional voltage potential that wasn't between the axis and axis.
Yes, in the conventional setups, the voltage potential is between the axis and rim, but when you make changes that is different than the conventional setups, then you must take this into account. We've been taught the voltage potential is between the axis and rim, but this is not always the case. He then convinced most that the way to connect the rims in series is to saturate the discs. He was defending his patents at this time and distracting from ideas that would make his patents invalid. I would say he was successful.
Here is an image of his setup.
GB you are correct about doubling the voltage but from experience I can tell you that the counter torque will not be gone, it will actually be doubled as well.
Quote from: broli on October 18, 2009, 06:36:18 PM
GB you are correct about doubling the voltage but from experience I can tell you that the counter torque will not be gone, it will actually be doubled as well.
You may be right about the counter torque being doubled as well as the voltage. I was thinking the counter torque on the left side of the magnet would be in the opposite direction as the counter torque on the right side of the magnet, thus canceling each other out. The counter torque on the left side should be in the opposite direction to the counter torque on the right side since the polarities of the axis are opposite on each side. I am having a difficult time visualizing how they would both be in the same direction with each other and also in the opposite direction as the momentum of the axle in which would cause the counter torque to be doubled. Does this make any sense?
Hope you can find the words to explain this to me. I will think about this, cause it is a real possibility the counter torque would be doubled.
Thanks,
GB
Actually, according to my estimates the voltage would be at least quadrupled as compared to a system running at the same rpm and with a disc of the same radii in the conventional setups and that is without stacking them.
I have a method that I haven't disclosed here which would increase the voltage by a factor of 100 or maybe even a 1,000 (it would be huge) utilizing the concepts I have mentioned with the same input requirements without any additional magnets being added to the system. Yes, according to experience the counter torque would increase in proportion to the voltage, but I can't figure out how that could be possible in this setup. I may be wrong though.
There is no reason to disclose this, since what I am saying isn't understood or accepted by anyone here which could build a model for proof of concept. I do plan on building this, but it may take me years before I can pursue it due to financial and other reasons.
If the concept is proven with a working model, then I will disclose it. It will surely work if the concept is proven. It will not work in the conventional setups.
Just finished making an illustration that shows the forces at play. The perspective isn't correct but it's done to aid visualization. These forces aren't usually talked about, even stronger they mostly claimed to exist on the disc and magnet which are glued to each other. This would make newton role in his grave. But using ampere's old force law it can be derived easily. Since action equals reaction in the strong form unlike the imaginary weak form.
There is an old hypothesis that gravity would cause the electrons in a conductor to "sag" very slightly downward, producing a slight potential difference between the top and bottom of the conductor.
The essential problem is that electric forces areso much stronger than gravitational ones that even quite tiny electrical effects overwhelm the expected gravitational effect.
I have taken a long piece of single wire and i started spinning it above my head like the blades of a helicopter.
The idea here was to see if i could force the electrons down the wire.
It certainly proved to be an intresting experiment and i did measure a definite potential diffrence between the center connection of the spinning wire and the earth connection.
Offcource, it would be quite hard to connect to the outer end of the spinning wire to measure the closed loop potential, but this could be done by making the connection touch something like an outer metal ring.
Then the setup would start to look like the farady experiment, but only with a "fragmented" disk so to speak.
I have always thought that the centrifugal force playes a major part in high speed rotating homopolar generators.
In theory the electrons are constantly forced to move to the outer end of the disk, creating a potential diffrence between the center and outer place on the disk, which is exactly what happens.
If the certrifugal force is strong enough to force the electrons through a strong magnetic field, the result would indeed be a strong current between the center and outer area of the disk, so it's certainly a possibillaty.
Nikola.
@broli:
If I have this correct, the counter torque is proportional to the amount of current that is being taken off the disc. Drawing more current will produce more counter torque and drop the output voltage in the system. I don't see the counter torque being proportional to the output voltage in the system. I see the counter torque dropping the output voltage in the system that is proportional to the current being taken off the disc. If we can get the system to have a high voltage, then we should be able to draw more current from the system than a lower voltage system with the same input requirements.
Also, if the input requirements would increase to the square thereof in order to maintain the same rpm and voltage due to drawing current off the disc, then the output power will increase to the 4th power (if we draw 8 watts off the system, then it would take much less than 8 watts of input to maintain the same rpm and voltage). We can only achieve this if we can increase the voltage in the system with the same rpm or input requirements, and the system I am talking about does just that. This is an OU machine. We just have to learn how to use it properly. We may not be able to overcome the counter torque, but this doesn't mean we can't have OU in the HPG.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this.
@Nikola:
What is responsible for the centripetal force that moves the electrons from the rim to the center with the correct direction of rotation and magnetic pole? There is no centripetal force in the system that could do this. This would suggest that the centrifugal force doesn't have a role in moving the electrons in the HPG since the same rpm's produces the same output with either polarity.
GB
I offered a very simple experiment anybody can do that shows that the (free) electrons are moving when the metal is rotated at high velocity.
If you are not going to do the nessessary experimentation, Please, ignore all of my work, aswell as the experiment and it's results,
And Please, do not post messages telling me why you think it cannot work like that.
There will be some people who see the importance of my test results over what somebody else is thinking, and they might eventually decide to try the experiment i described in my previous post.
What do you think will happen to these kids when we spin the disk faster and faster?
Nikola.
Quote from: Nikola Tesla on October 19, 2009, 09:49:44 AM
I offered a very simple experiment anybody can do that shows that the (free) electrons are moving when the metal is rotated at high velocity.
If you are not going to do the nessessary experimentation, Please, ignore all of my work, aswell as the experiment and it's results,
And Please, do not post messages telling me why you think it cannot work like that.
There will be some people who see the importance of my test results over what somebody else is thinking, and they might eventually decide to try the experiment i described in my previous post.
What do you think will happen to these kids when we spin the disk faster and faster?
Nikola.
The kids will fly off the disc of course. I do believe the centrifugal force can move the free electrons from the axis to the rim, but what is going to move the free electrons against the centrifugal force from the rim to the axis for current to flow. It is not the centrifugal force.
So, the force that moves them back to the axis is working against the centrifugal force. I would speculate that if there was no centrifugal force in the HPG, then the output power would be slightly higher because it wouldn't require additional energy to work against the centrifugal force in order to move those charges back to the axis for current to flow. The centrifugal force may be a slight hindrance in the HPG.
I do see the importance of your test results and I am not ignoring your work. If you have any ideas on how we can exploit your test results to have a positive effect in the HPG, then please share.
GB
@broli:
The diagram you drew is not correct. Please consider this.
Look at the black arrows on each disc showing the disc's direction of rotation. The black arrow on the left side is pointing in the CW direction and the black arrow on the right side is pointing in the CCW direction (it's a mirror image and this is throwing everyone off and is where relativity comes into play). This means the discs are moving through the stationary magnetic fields in opposite directions through like poles. The EMF on each disc is in the opposite direction or polarity. This means the counter torque is in the opposite direction on each side, thus canceling each other. The counter torque is always in the opposite direction to the EMF.
Another way to visualize this, is to cut your image straight down the middle. Place the left magnet on a table where the blue side is facing down and do this with the right magnet where the blue side is facing down. Now compare the black arrows. You will see they are pointing in opposite directions, thus the counter torque on each side will be pointing in the opposite direction and this cancels the counter torque while the EMF on each disc are in series to increase the voltage and power output. This is sooooooo beautiful. It's like poetry in motion.
GB
@broli:
We are both wrong.
In the system I am referring to, the voltage potential of the whole system is between the axis and axis. This is our rotating frame of reference.
The stationary wire that is running from the axis to axis is our stationary frame of reference which gives us a voltage potential in the opposite direction or polarity than our rotating frame. This provides a return path to the other side for current to flow.
Now, we also have two other rotating frames of references, the left disc and the right disc. We also have two other stationary frames of references, the magnetic field on each side. The voltage potential is again between the rotating frames of the disc and the stationary magnetic fields. Let's say the counter torque between the left disc and magnetic field is CW, then the counter torque between the wire and axis on the left side will be CCW, thus canceling each other out. This happens on both sides.
What do you think?
GB
Both magnets are hooked to the same axle and rotate in the same direction right? I don't see the issue with the diagram.
Quote from: broli on October 20, 2009, 10:07:40 AM
Both magnets are hooked to the same axle and rotate in the same direction right? I don't see the issue with the diagram.
Then why does each disc create a voltage potential that is opposite in direction or polarity in regards to the center and outward edges if they are on the same axle and rotating in the same direction through like poles? I do see an issue with the diagram from my perspective because the discs are moving through the stationary magnetic fields in opposite directions even though they are hooked to the same axle and rotate in the same direction. Can't you see this?
Polarity of the left disc is from the axis to rim. Polarity of the right disc is from rim to the axis. Both hooked to the same axis. Both rotating in the same direction. Both rotating through like poles. Yet, the polarity is opposite on each disc in regards to the center and outward edges.
Please read my previous post that I was editing prior to you posting. Reply #29
GB
Gb I don't know what you use to determine polarity direction but in this case you can use the Lorentz force to find it. Point your thumb in direction of rotation and your 4 fingers in the direction of magnetic field, your palm now will indicate the direction of the EMF. I use another method but both give the same result.
Quote from: broli on October 20, 2009, 11:34:50 AM
Gb I don't know what you use to determine polarity direction but in this case you can use the Lorentz force to find it. Point your thumb in direction of rotation and your 4 fingers in the direction of magnetic field, your palm now will indicate the direction of the EMF. I use another method but both give the same result.
If you don't know the proper direction of rotation through the magnetic field, then no method will work. You're using the rotation of the axle to determine the rotation of
both discs through the
stationary magnetic fields. This is not right.
In your diagram, one disc is on the right side of the magnet and the other disc is on the left side of the magnet. The disc on the left side is looking at the magnet's face from the east. The disc on the right side is looking at the magnet from the west. They are looking at the magnet's face from opposite directions, thus they will be moving through the magnetic field in opposite directions since the magnetic fields are stationary and is not rotating with the axis. This is why you can't use the axle's direction of rotation to determine the direction the discs will be moving relative to the stationary magnetic fields.
If the disc on the left side, was on the left side of the magnet, then both discs would be moving through the magnetic fields in the same direction.
If you're attached to the disc on the left side and looking at the magnetic field or the magnet's face, you will notice you are moving CW through the magnetic field.
If you're attached to the disc on the right side and looking at the magnetic field or magnet's face, you will notice you are moving CCW through the magnetic field.
Even though both discs are rotating in the same direction as the axle, each disc will be rotating through the magnetic fields in opposite directions.
The EMF isn't determined by the rotation of the axis. The EMF is determined by the direction the disc is moving through the magnetic field. Moving through the field CW will produce an opposite polarity than a disc moving through the field CCW.
This is clear as day.
This is elementary stuff which is beyond everyones comprehension. I will no longer make another post. God will confuse the wise with the simplest things of this world. I quit.
Good luck in your quest for OU. You won't find it, cause your eyes are not open.
No need to be upset, if I'm wrong I want to be enlightened. So you are saying that the polarity reverses if the disc is put on the other side? I don't see why that would happen. If you tell me your method to determine polarity direction then we might work out the misunderstanding. Btw we can live chat too.
Quote from: broli on October 20, 2009, 02:14:32 PM
No need to be upset, if I'm wrong I want to be enlightened. So you are saying that the polarity reverses if the disc is put on the other side? I don't see why that would happen. If you tell me your method to determine polarity direction then we might work out the misunderstanding. Btw we can live chat too.
Thanks for having an open mind.
If you have a disc on each side of a magnet, the polarity of the discs will be the same in respect to the center and outer edges. They will be rotating through the magnetic fields in opposite directions which causes them to have an opposite polarity in this sense, but they are also rotating through opposite poles, which will reverse the polarity again. In the end, each disc will have the same polarity in respect to the center / outer edges.
If we had a magnet that had the same poles on each side, a monopole magnet, with a disc on each side, then the discs are rotating through the magnetic fields in opposite directions which causes them to have an opposite polarity in respect to the center / outer edges of the disc. Since they are moving through like poles, then the polarity does not change again. In the end, each disc has an opposite polarity.
There are no monopole magnets and I used that for illustration purposes.....but using two separate magnets that are separated by distance with like poles facing outwards will have the same affect.
We both know changing the direction the axle is rotating will change the polarity of the disc. Lumen showed this in his experiment. Yucca tested the polarities of each side of his conductive magnet with the axle rotating in the same direction, and the polarities were the same on each side. Moving through opposite poles and moving in opposite directions relative to the magnetic fields will keep the polarities the same.
It will be easy to test this. Rotate a conductive magnet CW and take note of the polarity on the right side of the magnet. Flip the magnetic poles around, rotate the conductive magnet CW and take note of the polarity on the right side of the magnet. The polarities will be opposite when they rotate in the same direction through opposite poles. Do the same tests above, except rotate the conductive magnet CCW. You will see how the polarities change in regards to which direction the disc is moving through the magnetic field, and which pole it is moving through.
Thanks again,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on October 20, 2009, 03:11:40 PM
Thanks for having an open mind.
If you have a disc on each side of a magnet, the polarity of the discs will be the same in respect to the center and outer edges. They will be rotating through the magnetic fields in opposite directions which causes them to have an opposite polarity in this sense, but they are also rotating through opposite poles, which will reverse the polarity again. In the end, each disc will have the same polarity in respect to the center / outer edges.
If we had a magnet that had the same poles on each side, a monopole magnet, with a disc on each side, then the discs are rotating through the magnetic fields in opposite directions which causes them to have an opposite polarity in respect to the center / outer edges of the disc. Since they are moving through like poles, then the polarity does not change again. In the end, each disc has an opposite polarity.
There are no monopole magnets and I used that for illustration purposes.....but using two separate magnets that are separated by distance with like poles facing outwards will have the same affect.
We both know changing the direction the axle is rotating will change the polarity of the disc. Lumen showed this in his experiment. Yucca tested the polarities of each side of his conductive magnet with the axle rotating in the same direction, and the polarities were the same on each side. Moving through opposite poles and moving in opposite directions relative to the magnetic fields will keep the polarities the same.
It will be easy to test this. Rotate a conductive magnet CW and take note of the polarity on the right side of the magnet. Flip the magnetic poles around, rotate the conductive magnet CW and take note of the polarity on the right side of the magnet. The polarities will be opposite when they rotate in the same direction through opposite poles. Do the same tests above, except rotate the conductive magnet CCW. You will see how the polarities change in regards to which direction the disc is moving through the magnetic field, and which pole it is moving through.
Thanks again,
GB
Yes I agree with all of that. The only thing I'm pointing out is the forces on the stationary wire and not so stationary magnet. I tried many designs to try and shield this outside circuit but to no avail. It's the outside circuit that causes the counter torque on the moving magnet. I looked back to an old design I posted which may hold potential with some changes. Also a circular rail gun design that might have no back emf or torque.
I think your diagram is not correct because you are automatically assuming both discs are moving through the magnetic fields in the same direction as the axle.
Once you realize each disc is moving through the magnetic fields in opposite directions because they are both facing the magnet's face or magnetic fields in opposite directions, then you will understand how the polarities are different on each disc with the same direction as the axle.
Quote from: gravityblock on October 20, 2009, 03:36:23 PM
I think your diagram is not correct because you are automatically assuming both discs are moving through the magnetic fields in the same direction as the axle.
Once you realize each disc is moving through the magnetic fields in opposite directions because they are both facing the magnet's face or magnetic fields in opposite directions, then you will understand how the polarities are different on each disc with the same direction as the axle.
GB I'm preparing humble pie just in case either of us is wrong ;D . Doodle on the diagram to show what's wrong, if I got something wrong and still haven't realized it by now you deserve to shoot me.
Quote from: broli on October 20, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
It's the outside circuit that causes the counter torque on the moving magnet.
I agree with this. We need to ask ourselves why.
Some will say it's because the disc is pushing off the external circuit or something along that line. I think this is only partially correct. The electrons leaving the disc will push off the disc and the electrons leaving the external circuit will push off the external circuit. They should cancel each other out, but they don't due to the electrons pushing off the disc with less force at the rim than the electrons pushing off the external circuit at the axis.
The closer you get to the end of a toilet paper roll, the faster it will go (This I do know...LOL). The connection of the external circuit at the axis will see the axis of the disc rotating faster than the connection of the external circuit at the rim will see the rim of the disc rotating. This means the electrons at the axis are pushing off the external circuit with a greater force than the electrons are pushing off the disc at the rim. This creates an unequal force. The difference in this unequal force creates a counter torque against the rotation of the disc.
When we extract the current on each side of the axis, there is no unequal force, since the electrons will be pushing off the disc and pushing off the external circuit at the same speed or with the same force on both sides of the axis. These forces are canceled. This does not create a counter torque in the system.
This is a theory. It may not be correct and my brain is hurting and needs to rest before I throw out more dumb ideas. LOL
Quote from: gravityblock on October 20, 2009, 05:16:44 PM
I agree with this. We need to ask ourselves why.
Some will say it's because the disc is pushing off the external circuit or something along that line. I think this is only partially correct. The electrons leaving the disc will push off the disc and the electrons leaving the external circuit will push off the external circuit. They should cancel each other out, but they don't due to the electrons pushing off the disc with less force at the rim than the electrons pushing off the external circuit at the axis.
The closer you get to the end of a toilet paper roll, the faster it will go (This I do know...LOL). The connection of the external circuit at the axis will see the axis of the disc rotating faster than the connection of the external circuit at the rim will see the rim of the disc rotating. This means the electrons at the axis are pushing off the external circuit with a greater force than the electrons are pushing off the disc at the rim. This creates an unequal force. The difference in this unequal force creates a counter torque against the rotation of the disc.
When we extract the current on each side of the axis, there is no unequal force, since the electrons will be pushing off the disc and pushing off the external circuit at the same speed or with the same force on both sides of the axis. These forces are canceled. This does not create a counter torque in the system.
This is a theory. It may not be correct and my brain is hurting and needs to rest before I throw out more dumb ideas. LOL
That's interesting I never thought about the forces between the disc and stationary circuit. Since the disc essentially becomes a magnet when you spin it. But I think this would be negligible compared to the forces between the magnet and outside circuit.
What is the difference between the magnet and the disc? They are both rotating together in the same direction against the external circuit. The magnetic field induced on the disc will be stationary, the magnet's field is stationary, and the external circuit is stationary. How could there be forces between them when they are all stationary.
The only counter torque I can see will be the electrons leaving the disc with less force than leaving the external circuit with a small amount of friction between the disc and external circuit.
We've all thought the magnetic field is stationary even though the magnet is rotating. I believe this is true when current isn't being taken off the disc. It is a possibility that the magnetic field of the disc and magnet does rotate at a rate that is proportional to the current being taken off the disc. It is also possible the magnetic field of the disc may rotate proportional to the current drawn while the magnetic field of the magnet remains stationary. Then the counter torque may be the secondary effects of the field(s) rotating due to taking current off the disc. This would be my best guess, but I'm not totally convinced yet.
GB
I know you're familiar with this video about the inverted magnetic field, http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.wmv . This video is filled with valuable information. Here are my thoughts on it, without going into a discussion on the inverted field.
When the disc and magnet are held stationary and the external circuit is allowed to rotate, then the needle will spin CW when current is flowing through the disc and outside circuit. The external circuit must be pushing off the magnetic field of the magnet.
When the disc and magnet are allowed to rotate, then the disc/magnet will rotate CCW dragging the external circuit CCW when it otherwise wanted to rotate CW when the magnet and disc were held stationary. I assume the external circuit is pushing off the magnetic field of the magnet CW, and the disc is pushing off the magnet's field CCW. The external circuit pushing off the disc with a force that is less than the disc and the disc moves against the external circuit causing a counter torque. So, the disc and external circuit are pushing off the stationary magnetic field in opposite directions. This is our counter torque that is proportional to the current running through the system.
So, the counter torque is between the disc and external circuit. The disc wants to rotate in one direction and the outside circuit wants to rotate in the opposite direction.
In the system where we extract the current from each side of the axis, we'll say the whole system is rotating CW on it's axle. The current is running in opposite directions on each side. The connection of the external circuit on the left side must be opposing the left disc according to the direction of the current on that side. We'll say the external circuit on the left side will oppose the left disc CCW against the rotation of the system causing a counter torque. Likewise, the connection of the external circuit on the right side must be opposing the right disc according to the direction of the current on that side. Since the direction of current on the right disc is opposite to the left disc, then the connection of the external circuit on the right side must oppose the right disc CW which is with the direction of the axle giving it a forward torque. The counter torque and forward torque will cancel each other in this system.
It isn't possible to avoid the counter torque with a "N/S" configuration. The counter torque can only be canceled with a "N/N" or "S/S" configuration utilizing both sides. It just happens that each side is naturally connected in series with each other increasing the power output to the 4th power while the input requirements increase to the square thereof providing OU. There is a simple way to increase the power output of this system to input power even further which I have yet to disclose.
GB
GB get to know paint or photoshop. That you can draw your way through in conversations like these. We can talk all day about it without having a clear visual representation of the issue. So I advice you when you can to always draw what you mean. Our brains like pictures more than words.
Being able to draw would save me from having to write a book in each of my replies. I'm really surprise you take the time to read my long posts. I also repeat myself too much, which is redundant and not good for the reader. I will take your advice and work on these issues.
Thanks,
GB
Ok, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the forces on the wire and the counter torque on the magnet as shown in your diagram.
In the conventional setups, the magnetic field of the magnet and disc are axial while the electric fields and EMF is radial. When we extract the current between the axis and rim, then the EMF in the external circuit will be radial regardless to how the wire is running or the angle of those connections. No problem here.
In your design, the magnetic field of the magnet and disc is axial and the electric field is radial, but the current is being extracted between the rims which makes the EMF of the external circuit axial (the axis of the left disc is negative and the axis of the right disc is positive).
The forces on the wire and the counter torques shown on the magnet in your diagram is treating each individual magnet as a separate entity with an EMF that is radial. They are no longer two entities with an EMF that is radial, they are now a single entity with an EMF which is axial between the axis/axis or rim/rim. I am sure you will disagree with this, but the outside circuit will have an EMF that is axial regardless of the angle of those connections or how the wire is running and this is the reason why both magnets or both sides should be treated as a single entity with an EMF that is axial in this respect.
The arrows showing the forces on the wire and the counter torque on the magnet should be pointing horizontally and not vertically. They should be running parallel with the green arrows. The forces will either want to push the magnets apart or pull the magnets together. These forces are now negligible to the rotation of the system.
If you need a diagram, I am sure I can modify your image. If my thinking isn't correct, then please help.
GB
GB, if you would ask me what I would need to create a true back emfless motor I would say that I need a wire piece that has a permanent field around it as if a current is flowing threw it, I call it an open circuit current. Look at the below illustration. If something like that can be created even momentarily we would have a generator with constant torque regardless of rotational speed.
GB, could you please please please at least draw this out on paper and upload it. I've played around with this quite a bit in the past and your descriptions are nearly impossible to visualize. I'd rather look at the worst drawing than try to figure out your posts again. No offense intended. a drawing will help out this process bigtime. thank you.
Below is an illustration showing a disc and a magnet with an inverted field. The magnet isn't drawn, but the disc should show how the magnet would be drawn. The wires will rotate with the disc. The wire at the top of the disc will make a connection to the axle of another disc/magnet with no inverted field which will remain stationary. The wire at the bottom of the disc will make a connection to the rim of the other disc.
As current is extracted between the axis/rim of the stationary disc, the torque created by the wires will be canceled and the generator will maintain it's rotational speed. Maybe you can play around with this idea and find the right polarities or configuration to make it work. If both sides had an inverted field of opposite polarity, then it may provide a forward torque.
Quote from: Hugo Chavez on October 23, 2009, 07:06:47 AM
GB, could you please please please at least draw this out on paper and upload it. I've played around with this quite a bit in the past and your descriptions are nearly impossible to visualize. I'd rather look at the worst drawing than try to figure out your posts again. No offense intended. a drawing will help out this process bigtime. thank you.
It's not any different than broli's illustration. Broli's illustration has a different perspective to help in the visualation, but the result is the same. The result is the voltage is increased, but the counter torque is increased as well.
GB the inverted field idea might seem good at first but trust me it will not generate a voltage. I have been down that road with this thread...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7391.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7391.0)
The reason why is partially due the fact there's no relative movement between magnet and conductor AND the fact that no matter what you do as long as you use a closed loop circuit you will always face the same problem namely what you gain at some point your lose at another. This can be because of the kirchhoff rule for current, what arrives at a point must leave from that point. This is why I posted the last illustration, if we can break that rule even for a fraction of a second we can have a wire piece that will momentarily have a magnetic field around it without using a disc or return wire. So instead we have to really think out of the box with this one. How can an open circuit wire piece have a magnetic field around it? How about electrical induction (aka polarization)?
The design in the other thread you mentioned only has a rotating frame. You need both a rotating and stationary frame for a voltage. A rotating frame can provide an EMF on the disc, but relative motion such as a stationary circuit is required for a voltage potential that can be brought out.
What is needed to create an EMF? Relative motion between the disc and magnetic field. This can happen when the disc and magnet rotate together since the magnetic field is stationary. The rotating disc doesn't see the rotating EMF created on the disc, since they're rotating together, so no voltage is able to be brought out in the rotating frame.
What is needed to have voltage for current to flow? Relative motion between a rotating disc with an EMF and a stationary disc. The rotating disc will see an EMF in the stationary frame, and the stationary frame will see an EMF in the rotating frame and voltage is able to be brought out of the system. My illustration meets both of these requirements.
The stationary magnet isn't there to create an EMF, it is there to provide the torque. The rotating disc creates an EMF in the stationary disc due to relative motion between the discs with an opposite polarity. The current running through the stationary disc will create a torque on the stationary magnet, which will either provide a forward torque or counter torque depending on the polarity of the stationary magnet. The inverted field doesn't need to be in the rotating frame and could always be part of the stationary frame. It may not even be required.
I'll simplify my illustration without the inverted field.
Rotating disc and magnet with a stationary external circuit. Do you agree there will be a voltage with that setup? I hope so, cause it's a basic HPG. The external circuit will be a stationary disc or stationary wire piece which connects to the rotating disc at the axis with a slip ring and a brush at the rim.
As current flows through the stationary disc from axis to the rim, it will create a torque on the stationary magnet. The stationary magnet will then provide a forward torque or counter torque according to the polarity of the stationary magnet.
Do you agree if current is running through the stationary disc, the stationary magnet will rotate if it's allowed to? Do you agree the direction the stationary magnet will rotate depends on the direction the current is running through the disc? Do you agree by reversing the poles on the stationary magnet, it will rotate in the opposite direction if allowed to? Because the stationary magnet isn't allowed to rotate, it will provide a torque on the wires which is either in the direction of rotation, or against the direction of rotation depending on which pole of the stationary magnet is facing the disc.
The stationary magnet and rotating magnet will need to be separated with enough distance so they don't influence each other.
If you don't agree with any of those questions, then it won't work. The stationary magnet and stationary disc will act as a motor for the generator or rotating disc/magnet. I know, it sounds crazy..... a motor that doesn't rotate, but it's purpose is to provide the torque for the generator and in this respect, it can be viewed as a motor because it's giving power to the generator. If the stationary magnet has a stronger magnetic field than the rotating magnet on the generator, then we can extract more current than the input requirements to run the generator.
The stationary disc can be viewed as your "open circuit" wire peace with a continuous current running through it with a magnetic field. It just has return path to the generator and an arrival path from the generator. You said to think outside of the box, and I have.
I give you a possible solution and I hope you at least give it some thought. My words aren't understood and my drawings aren't understood. :(
What am I overlooking?
GB
I modified boli's image showing the forces on the wire and magnets with a forward torque. I reversed the poles on the left magnet. I added brushes to the left axis. I corrected the arrows showing the forces. Left disc should be viewed as a stationary circuit. Left magnet should be viewed as providing the forward torque due to current running through the left disc (this is the reason for the pole reversal on the left magnet). Left magnet does not induce an EMF or Voltage potential on the left disc since both are stationary. It's role is to provide the torque. Stationary magnet should increase the resistance in the system, which should increase the voltage potential.
The charges are separated on the right disc due to rotating through a magnetic field with an EMF pointing in one direction. Stationary left disc provides relative motion to the rotating frame and is induced with an EMF pointing in the opposite direction as the rotating frame. A voltage potential is created on the left disc which can be extracted between the rim and axis.
I can't simplify this anymore.
Here is a simple test. Rotate the magnet/disc CW while the external circuit is stationary (the system is a generator). Take note of the polarity of the disc which will be opposite in direction to our volt meter reading. So, if our volt meter (our external circuit) says it's running from the rim to axis, then the current is running from the axis to rim in the disc. We'll say it is pointing from the center to the outward edges in the disc. Now, with the magnet, disc, and external circuit stationary, run current through the disc where it runs from the axis to rim and take note of the rotation of the magnet/disc (the system is now a motor). The rotation will be CCW. This is the counter torque in the HPG. In order to eliminate the counter torque in the HPG, we must keep it from acting as a motor that opposes the generator or have it act as a motor that is with the generator to provide a forward torque.
Remove the left magnet in the modified illustration and you will see it is a very basic HPG. The left magnet will not act as a shield. If it did, then the homopolar motor would not work when current is running through the disc. Instead of using the left magnet/disc as a motor that is against the rotation of the generator, we use the correct pole of the left magnet according to the direction the current is moving through the left disc to have it behave as a motor that is with the rotation of the generator.
In a HPG, a stationary magnetic field can not induce an EMF in the stationary external circuit. There is no relative motion between them. In the modified image, the external circuit is induced with an EMF from the right disc due to relative motion between them.
If the magnetic field did induce an EMF in both the disc and external circuit, due to them rotating together, then both will have an EMF in the same direction, thus no voltage can be brought out of the system in the rotating frame.
The voltage and emf remains the same throughout any two connection points, on average. When a stationary frame is connected to the rotating frame, the separated charges now move to the two connection points of the stationary frame. The separated charges in the stationary frame will now see an EMF in the rotating frame. Likewise, the charges in the rotating frame will see an EMF in the stationary frame. This induces an opposite EMF in the stationary frame and creates a voltage potential between the 2 connection points which is equal to the EMF.
Sometimes you type too much to read ;D . So I'll just make this comment and you can make form a conclusion.
I don't know why you assume a voltage is produced in the right setup. Both the disc and the outgoing wire will produce a voltage if they are both rotated in the magnetic field. See the below diagram.
I call this the escape attempt. From the knowledge I have so far no matter how you try to escape from the magnetic field, you will always fail and end up losing what you gained. Unless an invention can shield and contain a wire's magnetic field OR like mentioned before you can allow a permanent magnetic field around a wire without having to close a current loop, this is kind of like shielding in a way. Without that I think any conventional attempt is hopeless. I say this out of experience.
Quote from: broli on October 24, 2009, 01:08:49 PM
I don't know why you assume a voltage is produced in the right setup. Both the disc and the outgoing wire will produce a voltage if they are both rotated in the magnetic field. See the below diagram.
The outgoing wire in the diagram is just part of the rotating disc so it will have the same EMF induced by the magnetic field. It is not part of the stationary external circuit. The stationary external circuit is the left disc which provides relative motion between it and the rotating wire and disc to create a voltage. How can the stationary magnetic field on the right disc induce an EMF or voltage on a stationary disc? How can the magnetic field induce a different polarity on the disc and stationary circuit? The rotating frame and stationary frame has to be looked at as being separate. The rotating frame may have a magnetic field, while a stationary frame sees an electric field in the rotating frame and vice versa. You have to look at each frame individually, then compare the two frames.
It does
not produce a voltage. It produces an EMF. When the wires of the rotating frame are connected to a stationary frame such as a disc or wire piece, the separated charges or EMF moves to the stationary frame from the rotating frame. Now there is an EMF in the stationary frame. The stationary frame see's the EMF on the rotating frame pointing in one direction. The rotating frame see's the EMF on the stationary frame pointing in the other direction. This forms a closed loop and creates a voltage between the two frames, which is between the axis and rim. The charges in each frame will move in opposite directions. On the right side (axis to rim), left side (rim to axis).
It takes two EMF's pointing in the opposite direction to each other in order to have a voltage. When we test the polarity of the disc with a volt meter, our volt meter acts as an external circuit. Without the volt meter or external circuit, there is only an EMF on the disc with no voltage potential. With a volt meter, the meter acts as the stationary circuit providing relative motion between the rotating and stationary frame to close the loop and an EMF between the two connections will be read. The polarity the volt meter reads, will be opposite to the polarity in the disc. The EMF our volt meter reads is always said to be the voltage potential but in reality it creates a return path and EMF opposite in direction to the rotating frame to be read. What the meter is reading, is not in the same frame as what is being read. LOL
@broli:
Shielding the magnetic field does not work and I know why. It is because the voltage remains the same between the two connection points. If you shield everything between the two connection points, then you won't have any voltage. If shielding is done properly, then you can divert the return path of the magnetic field.
In the modified illustration, it is both a motor and a generator that are working together. In the conventional HPG's, the magnetic field from the current flowing radially through the disc causes the magnet to spin against the rotation of the generator. The motor and generator are united together. All I have done is separated the motor from the generator by reversing the pole on the stationary magnet so it provides a torque with the generator. This can not be done using one magnet and one disc. You need 2 magnets and 2 discs. One set is for the motor and the other set is for the generator. Each side separates the motor from the generator like a firewall so they can work together instead of against each other. Without a firewall between the motor and generator, then all attempts will fail.
The electric field of the magnet does rotate with the magnet. The magnetic field of the current running through the disc acts on the electric field of the magnet which causes the magnet to rotate according to the direction the electric field is pointing in the magnet and according to the direction the current is moving in the disc.
We can't shield the magnetic field of the current running through the disc, but we can change which direction the electric field is pointing in the stationary magnet by reversing the poles to match the direction of rotation in the system. Since we reversed the poles on the magnet, this will cause the magnetic field of the magnet to act against the flow of the moving charges on the disc and wire. This creates resistance in the system, which will increase the voltage and decrease the flow of current and that is not a bad thing because we need the voltage.
We converted the counter torque to a forward torque or at least eliminated the counter torque, we raised the voltage, and decreased the current. I can live that.
GB
@broli:
I corrected the image so it will now have a voltage. I can't believe I made that mistake in the drawing, LOL. I moved both brushes to the right disc. The wires will not rotate, they will remain stationary with the stationary disc and magnet on the left side. I don't know what I was thinking. This should provide a forward torque from the left magnet and a counter torque from the right magnet. The end result would be equivalent to eliminating the counter torque.
Edit: The orange wire on the right side should be pointing down and the purple wire on the right should be pointing up. I forgot to make this correction in the image.
If you need me to upload a video showing it has voltage, I will. I've already tested it. My volt meter reads 3mv when I test between the rim of the stationary magnet and the rim of the rotating magnet with a nail connected to both magnets at the axis. I'm only getting 3mv out of the system because of a low rpm and very small diameter neo magnets. Voltage output is too low to determine if the counter torque would be eliminated or not. I tried both the north and south poles of the stationary magnet and I received the same 3mv. I have the same voltage in the system when I test between the axis and rim of the rotating conductive magnet without the stationary magnet.
I have a resistor across the terminals of my volt meter to eliminate a false reading from my pc fan and other external sources. When the terminals of my meter aren't connected, it shows 0 volts even in close proximity to the magnets.
Quote from: gravityblock on October 23, 2009, 10:26:32 PM
As current flows through the stationary disc from axis to the rim, it will create a torque on the stationary magnet.
What am I overlooking?
Are you sure the magnet will rotate? It interacts with the magnetic field, not the magnet.
Why does the disk rotate at all?
What is a conductor, or a conductive disk?
Is it somehow changed when placed in a magnetic field?
A magnetic field is a homogenous standing wave. With a cylindrical magnet, the standing wave does not appear to change. Why would it?
You can create a comparable version of the Faraday HPG by rotating a dielectric disc, but you must take the current off with plates perpendicular to the disc and magnetic field. This is known as the Wilson Effect.
The real trick would be to make a conductor or dielectric "appear" to rotate without actually rotating it physically, so that you get an interaction with the magnetic field and the generation of a current.
To do that we need to know what a conductor and dielectric really are and why homopolar devices work at all.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 26, 2009, 07:48:42 PM
Are you sure the magnet will rotate? It interacts with the magnetic field, not the magnet.
Current running radially through a disc will cause a magnet to rotate. This is how a homopolar motor works.
Magnetic fields can move electrical charges. Magnetic fields have a force on the moving charges (electrons) that make up the electric field in a magnet. Magnetic fields do not have a force on other magnetic fields, they have a force on each other's electric fields which is made up of charges.
The magnetic field of the magnet doesn't rotate with the magnet, but the electric fields of the magnet and disc do rotate with the magnet and disc. This is how a magnetic field can cause a magnet or disc to rotate.
The magnetic field of the magnet and the magnetic field of the current running through the disc acts on each other's electric fields which is in opposition to each other, thus a counter torque.
When a disc rotates through the magnetic field of a magnet, the charges are separated on the disc. This sets up an EMF or static electric field in the disc with a force in one direction. Since the charges aren't moving in the disc do to no return path, there is no magnetic field acting on the electric field of the magnet.
An external circuit provides a return path for those separated charges to move. As soon as those charges start to move through the disc, the magnetic field created by those moving charges have a force on the magnet's electric field that is against the rotation of the magnet. Increasing the amount of current moving through the disc will increase the strength of the magnetic field of the current providing more opposition to the electric field of the magnet, which increases the counter torque.
An induced magnetic field is always in opposition to the magnetic field that induced it, due to the magnetic fields acting on each other's electric fields or moving charges.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on October 26, 2009, 10:45:11 PM
Current running radially through a disc will cause a magnet to rotate. This is how a homopolar motor works.
Magnetic fields can move electrical charges. Magnetic fields have a force on the moving charges (electrons) that make up the electric field in a magnet. Magnetic fields do not have a force on other magnetic fields, they have a force on each other's electric fields which is made up of charges.
The magnetic field of the magnet doesn't rotate with the magnet, but the electric fields of the magnet and disc do rotate with the magnet and disc. This is how a magnetic field can cause a magnet or disc to rotate.
The magnetic field of the magnet and the magnetic field of the current running through the disc acts on each other's electric fields which is in opposition to each other, thus a counter torque.
When a disc rotates through the magnetic field of a magnet, the charges are separated on the disc. This sets up an EMF or static electric field in the disc with a force in one direction. Since the charges aren't moving in the disc do to no return path, there is no magnetic field acting on the electric field of the magnet.
An external circuit provides a return path for those separated charges to move. As soon as those charges start to move through the disc, the magnetic field created by those moving charges have a force on the magnet's electric field that is against the rotation of the magnet. Increasing the amount of current moving through the disc will increase the strength of the magnetic field of the current providing more opposition to the electric field of the magnet, which increases the counter torque.
An induced magnetic field is always in opposition to the magnetic field that induced it, due to the magnetic fields acting on each other's electric fields or moving charges.
GB
A magnetic field does move with a magnet, it just doesn't appear to rotate when the field is not changing. Rotate a flat magnet on it's side and the field above it will change.
As for the magnet rotating when current is moving radially across the conductive disc, will it rotate if it is non-conductive?
Will the disc rotate with no brushes attached?
Doesn't the electric field from the center of the disc to the periphery polarize the disc radially?
Quote from: Grumpy on October 27, 2009, 08:03:42 AM
A magnetic field does move with a magnet, it just doesn't appear to rotate when the field is not changing. Rotate a flat magnet on it's side and the field above it will change.
As for the magnet rotating when current is moving radially across the conductive disc, will it rotate if it is non-conductive?
Will the disc rotate with no brushes attached?
Doesn't the electric field from the center of the disc to the periphery polarize the disc radially?
The magnetic field does not rotate with a magnet when it's rotating on it's magnetic axis. Rotate a magnet on it's axis and no voltage is detected on a stationary disc because the magnetic field is stationary.. A disc rotating with a magnet will have a voltage because the magnetic field is stationary and the disc is moving through the field.
The magnet will rotate when it's non-conductive when current is flowing radially through a disc.
A disc won't rotate without brushes. There needs to be relative motion between the disc and external circuit.
The electric field in the disc will have a polarity between the axis and rim. The axis can be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation through the magnetic field and what poles it is rotating through.
Quote from: gravityblock on October 27, 2009, 08:27:35 AM
The magnetic field does not rotate with a magnet when it's rotating on it's magnetic axis. Rotate a magnet on it's axis and no voltage is detected on a stationary disc because the magnetic field is stationary.. A disc rotating with a magnet will have a voltage because the magnetic field is stationary and the disc is moving through the field.
The magnet will rotate when it's non-conductive when current is flowing radially through a disc.
A disc won't rotate without brushes. There needs to be relative motion between the disc and external circuit.
The electric field in the disc will have a polarity between the axis and rim. The axis can be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation through the magnetic field and what poles it is rotating through.
What I'm getting at is that there has to be a transfer of momentum.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 27, 2009, 09:54:16 AM
What I'm getting at is that there has to be a transfer of momentum.
Of course, but we don't want the transfer to be against the rotation of the system.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8141.msg206292#msg206292
@grumpy:
I think we need to look at the possibility of extracting the current between the rim of one half of the disc and the rim of the other half of the disc with a magnet that is radially magnetized instead of from axis to rim with a magnet magnetized axially in the conventional setups.
It wouldn't be much different than one of broli's design. We would use a radially magnetized magnet where one half is north and the other half is south. The radial magnet would remain stationary, the disc would rotate, and our external circuit would be stationary. We would extract the current between the rims of both halves instead of between the axis and rim.
This would allow us to have the current flowing through the whole diameter of the disc in one direction and our external circuit would provide the return path to the other side. There would be a counter torque on one half of the magnet and a forward torque on the other half, thus canceling each other out. The voltage should be doubled with no counter torque.
Below is an illustration. There is a possible problem with this design and it may not work as is. The drawing is only showing the concept to help in the visualization.
how would you create the interaction without moving all of that mass?
Quote from: Grumpy on October 28, 2009, 08:48:38 AM
how would you create the interaction without moving all of that mass?
LOL. I have no idea what you're talking about. All that is required to have a voltage for current to flow is relative motion between the disc and external circuit and for the disc or external circuit to move through the stationary magnetic field.
The interaction with that design is no different than the interaction with a conventional HPG. Below are the conditions for a HPG to create a voltage for current to flow.
1) Stationary magnet, rotating disc, stationary external circuit produces a voltage and current.
2) Stationary magnet, stationary disc, rotating external circuit produces a voltage and current.
3) Rotating magnet, rotating disc, stationary external circuit produces a voltage and current.
4) Rotating magnet, stationary disc, rotating external circuit produces a voltage and current.
Create a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and you cause particle drift perpendicular to the force and the mag field.
"Motionless homopolar generator" ...bada bing!
Come on, GB, take a good hard look at it.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 28, 2009, 08:52:43 PM
Create a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and you cause particle drift perpendicular to the force and the mag field.
"Motionless homopolar generator" ...bada bing!
Come on, GB, take a good hard look at it.
A "Motionless homopolar generator" would be great. I will consider giving this more thought. I'm under the impression you feel the kick coil at 7.8hz perpendicular to the magnetic field can be used as a force to cause the electrons to move in a conductive disc, as it does with the dancing magnets in the video. I will say this is an interesting idea.
Please note, the two dancing magnets are moving radially and not in a circular motion that occurs when the free electrons drift in a uniform magnetic field randomly. This is due to other forces and fields being present. Since the force is constant and perpendicular to the magnetic field, then the dancing magnets move radially. This would suggest the current would flow radially in a conductive disc with this setup.
The interesting thing in the video, is how the dancing magnets move back and forth. This should allow us to create a return path and have a voltage potential between the axis and rim, without having relative motion between the disc and external circuit.
Excellent Idea,
GB
replace the rotating disc with a rotating force field
Have you ever seen Eric Dollard's video where he demonstrates a Tesla Coil transmitter and receiver, lighting bulbs with radiant electricity, and shows that a strip of copper is "attracted" to the bulb lit by the RE?
Now, you probably can't just place a ring of RE-lit bulbs inside a toroidal coil and get the goods. The "force" will be in all directions and according to the "guiding center" link above, the "force" has to be in one direction. So, it may work if you pulsed your RE bulbs sequentially inside a toroid, or with a coil inside or ouside the ring of bulbs. Don't forget the static magnetic field perpendicular to the coil.
Kind of sheds a new "light" (pun intended) on those UFO's with rotating lights...
Edit:
There may be a few other ways to impart the necessary force to the conductor:
The Resonant Gravity Field Coil paper that has been floating around since the BBS days mentions altered gravity in the center of the coils. This device also has a static magnetic field around it - a solenoid coil - which is modulated to vary the field in the center of the coils. Gravity is an acceptable "independent force" mentioned in Method "C" for causing particle drift.
Quote from: scotty1 on September 29, 2008, 02:46:30 AM
I don't know about convert?
I only believe the truth...and the truth is that the field does not rotate with the magnet matter.
Now I want to know how atomic domains that are aligned to produce the field, stay motionless as the mass rotates......that is impossible.
How can the electrons ect or any atomic domain theory explain how the field does not rotate with the matter?
The Paradox remains as far as i'm concerned.....not for me, but for the scientists who use domain theory.
My experiment clearly shows that the magnet field is SOMETHING ELSE, and that the SOMETHING is concentrated in the magnet and flowing through it....
We are all completely submerged in that SUBSTANCE.
The whole universe is too.
I think this thread has gone off topic as Scotty intended. it seems the magnet works like a magnifying glass focusing the field but not producing it. very interesting.
@Dave45:
Being off-topic is better than no discussion at all. This thread was dead for a while. Scotty brings up a good point on why an uniform field should rotate with the magnet according to the atomic domain theory.
The interesting thing is, with a radial magnet where half of one side is north and the other half of the same side is south, then the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet. A radial magnet has no magnetic axis to spin on where the field remains stationary.
This suggests the south pole anchors itself to the north pole and the north pole anchors itself to the south pole. When the north and south poles are on opposite sides of the magnet, each pole is rotating in opposite directions relative to the face of the magnet. The north pole will be rotating CW with the magnet's face and the south pole will be rotating CCW with the magnet's face, or vice versa. The forces on each side of the magnet will cancel the fields from rotating with the magnet. It's similar to having 2 people pull you in opposite directions with an equal force, you will remain stationary.
When the opposite poles are on the same side of the magnet, then they will rotate with the magnet because each pole is anchored to the other pole on the same side of the magnet, thus the field will rotate with the magnet.
When I first replied to this thread, I mentioned that the field may rotate with the magnet when current is flowing through the disc. This is because the current flowing through the disc has a magnetic field and a moving electric field, but when current isn't flowing through the disc, then there is only a static electric field and no magnetic field on the disc.
Scotty says the paradox still remains. I say Scotty's experiment is incomplete and there is no paradox as explained above.
I've already suggested how opposite poles may anchor themselves to each other and why they remain stationary or rotating depending on how they are anchored to each other. Why the idea that the field may rotate with the magnet when current is flowing through the disc is automatically rejected based on an experiment when current isn't flowing through the disc is beyond me.
Until it is understood why and how the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating, then we have no idea how to manipulate this to our benefit. I gave a possible reason to why and how it can rotate or remain stationary with the magnet, and current flowing through the disc can certainly change things due to it having a magnetic field.
Having an inverted field on the same side of the magnet will cause the field to rotate with the magnet. This will allow the counter torque to be canceled when current is being taken off the disc.
This topic is about the paradox of the field remaining stationary. There is no paradox. It is common sense when it's logically thought through. I'm trying to suggest ways to overcome the counter torque associated with drawing current off the disc by exploiting how the magnetic fields can rotate and remain stationary with the magnet.
If we can't move on from the basic elementary truths in the universe, such as understanding Faraday's paradox (not just accepting it or not accepting it, but really understanding why it remains stationary and what causes it to rotate with the magnet), then how can we understand how to manipulate those basic truths to our benefit and move on to more complex things to achieve OU. I don't see it happening, cause we still drinking milk as babes do. We should be eating meat by now and topics such as this shouldn't even exist on this board. God will confuse the wise with the simplest things of this world.
GB
GB I understand what your saying and Im glad to see you look to God for answers and understanding I believe He will give us tools to fight in the physical world as well as in the spiritual realm.
Dave
I believe ice is the answer, more later still studying searching experimenting.
When they make a permanent magnet they pass a dc current through a cooling alloy. This creates a crystal where the magnet dipole moments of the atomic neuclei are aligned as though the current was still present. Then before the pm is shipped they induce a very strong magnetic field though the crystal. This energy transfer increases the intrinsic angular momentum of the atoms in the molecular matrix. Any acceleration of mass or increase in angular momentum radiates a magnetic dipole field. The flux of which depends on the density of the crystal and the angular momentum of the atoms distributed in the crystal. If the mass of the pm is rotated so that it's angular momentum is the same vector as the atomic rotation there is no net change in the magnetic field radiation unless we consider the grain of the crystal and spin it at near speed of light edge velocities. Magnetic fields are created from spinning charged mass. If the disk is stationary and the pm is spun relative to the stationary disk it is the same as the disk spinning relative to the stationary magnet or the two spinning together. The pm magnetic field is always the observer. The stationary thing. The copper mass on the edge of the disk is being penetrated by a magnetic field as is that on the core. The acceleration relative to the pm observer field is greater on the edge of the disk than the acceleration of the copper atoms near the axis of the disk. The radiated magnetic field is different for the faster moving atoms on the edge of the disk compared to the atoms on the interior of the disk. This is observed by the pm magnetic field. This changed magnetic field induces a voltage as the electrons now cycle or drift around an altered magnetic field flux. Any current drawn through an external circuit will of course represent some more charged mass acceleration (in the mass of the disk) and another radiated magnetic field which will require input of energy from somewhere to continue the acceleration of the disk.
Quote from: sparks on October 30, 2009, 10:20:12 PM
If the disk is stationary and the pm is spun relative to the stationary disk it is the same as the disk spinning relative to the stationary magnet or the two spinning together.
That is 100% wrong. Rotating the magnet while the disc is stationary doesn't have a voltage potential or EMF on the disc because the magnetic field doesn't rotate with the magnet, so the disc isn't moving through the field. <--------- This is documented very well, and it's not the same as the disk spinning relative to the stationary magnet or the two spinning together..
You have just stumbled upon Faraday's Paradox, the magnetic field doesn't rotate with the magnet when it's rotating on it's magnetic axis.
GB
Some think that it is "off topic" or does not apply, but look at charged particle drifts again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiding_center
See attached image: (first image)
The disc doesn't care if the mag field rotates or not as long as it is homogeneous. For all we know, you could modulate this magnetic field and take the hom-gen to a new level or blow it sky-high. Few ever get past the idea of a rotating disc, so a varying mag field never crosses their mind.
When looking to rid ourselves of the rotating disc, the question: What sort of "force" can be used in place of a rotating disc?
A "force" can be termed a change in acceleration (F=ma), or a change in "momentum", which is what acceleration is.
Momentum is P=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
How do we change "momentum"?
1. Change mass or energy
2. Change the velocity
3. change the speed of light
Another way to cause particle drift is to use a non-uniform field, and it may be that non-uniform fields cause a change in momentum so that these two methods are essentially the same.
One way to change momentum is Tesla's radiant electric shockwave. Look at Tesla's original pancake transformer: (second image)
So, what happens if you add en external field to a Tesal coil?
@gb
OOPS mybad
I then went on to say that the pm magnetic field was the observer in the experiment. It observes the action but remains essentialy unchanged. :P
@Grumpy
Would an electric field be considered an accelerating force? An electric field perpendicular to a stationary magnetic field with some free electrons in the mix and mindful of the other accelerating force gravity. This should at least put electron drift into some kind of predictable current. The problem with using gravity as an accelerating force is that you need to lower the density of the surrounding mass, provide free electrons or ions in this field and put together the guiding magnetic field and exclude or use any polidial fields permeating the system. I'm sure Tesla did it as well as Hutchinson. I believe Hutchinson worked with gravitational fields of the Moon. While Tesla worked with plane old Earth gravity.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 31, 2009, 12:08:48 PM
The disc doesn't care if the mag field rotates or not as long as it is homogeneous. For all we know, you could modulate this magnetic field and take the hom-gen to a new level or blow it sky-high. Few ever get past the idea of a rotating disc, so a varying mag field never crosses their mind.
I've done my share of HPG work and once experimented with your concept. I found it very aggravating to learn that modulating the mag field (I used a PRF from 0 to 250kHz) resulted in anything but what you expect. In short, it did a good job of heating the disc and not much more, whether the disc rotated or not.
This forced me to conclude the potential difference between the center and outer diameter of a working HPG was due to the difference in angular velocity between the center and outer diameter.
On the Tesla coil question: I can tell you one thing does happen.... Adding a magnetic field to such a coil increases the operating Q, to a point. Too strong a field and you have the same effect as a saturated core.
Sorry. I had a break. I'll be quiet now :)
The problem with the unipolar gen is once a current insues it's inertia will conflict with the inertia expressed by the permanent magnet. And we have friction, collisions, drag etc. Just like in a multipolar alternator. I never tried it but instead of just a disk use a tesla pancake coil and spin it. Bifilar wound series connected magnetic canceling. When current is drawn through the external load no bucking magnetic field on the disc. I made the mistake a couple of times of missconnecting electric motor windings so that they were magnetically cancelling. I'm sure that if I had connected a second motor in series with the misconnected one it would have run fine with very little voltage drop entering the circuit due to the misconnected motor windings. Another thing could we try pulsing the field and drawing the current out of phase with the induced voltage? If inductance (electron inertia) gives us enough time to get the field winding out of the picture then the load current on the disc will not conflict with the exciter field because it's gone. There will still be work involved spinning the unit to create a rotating inertial frame but alot better than brute forcing current.
Quote from: BEP on October 31, 2009, 09:47:27 PM
I've done my share of HPG work and once experimented with your concept. I found it very aggravating to learn that modulating the mag field (I used a PRF from 0 to 250kHz) resulted in anything but what you expect. In short, it did a good job of heating the disc and not much more, whether the disc rotated or not.
This forced me to conclude the potential difference between the center and outer diameter of a working HPG was due to the difference in angular velocity between the center and outer diameter.
On the Tesla coil question: I can tell you one thing does happen.... Adding a magnetic field to such a coil increases the operating Q, to a point. Too strong a field and you have the same effect as a saturated core.
Sorry. I had a break. I'll be quiet now :)
I was getting tired of seeing people beat the ol' HPG dead horse. It's just an eddie current brake with a load on it.
On the Tesla coil - which coil configuration and what was the direction of the mag field?
Electric field results in both particle going the same direction and no current.
Should be able to passively use the Earth gravity field with the right configuration - simplest of which appears to be Tesla's radiant energy receivers. Who would have thought...
In order order to have an electric field, the charges must be separated on the disc. The electric field has a force in one direction. This is the electromotive force (EMF). The electric field is static, since it has nowhere to go.
Having relative motion between the disc and external circuit is what creates the potential difference to have a voltage for current to flow. This allows the electric field to move, since there is a return path due to the relative motion. The angular velocity through the magnetic field is what separates the charges to create an EMF. The difference in the angular velocity between the axis and rim does not create the potential difference between the axis and rim. It is the relative motion between the disc and external circuit that creates the potential difference between the axis/rim of the disc and rim/axis of the external circuit. It takes two EMF's opposite in polarity to have a voltage potential.
You're volt meter will say it has a potential voltage between the center and outer edges, but your volt meter is then providing the relative motion in order to have a voltage potential.
The EMF and the voltage are not the same thing. The voltage is always equal and opposite in direction or polarity to the EMF. Without the voltage, the EMF can't move those charges due to no return path, thus it remains a static electric field.
GB
@BEP:
What if we had an inner wheel and an outer wheel. A wheel inside a wheel. The inner wheel will rotate and the outer wheel will remain stationary. There will be relative motion between the inner and outer wheels. There will be a difference in angular velocity between the axis/rim of the inner wheel and the rim/axis of the outer wheel. Connect a wire from the rim of the outer wheel to the axis of the inner wheel with a brush. We'll also need a wire connecting the outer wheel to the inner wheel.
This is half baked, but I understand what you mean by the angular velocity between the axis and rim. It does play a role. I'll try to draw an illustration.
The red disc will be rotating through the North Pole. Charges will be separated on the red disc and will flow from the center of the red disc to the outer edges of the red disc due to the angular velocity between the axis and rim of the red disc.
The separated charges will now drift from the inner edges of the stationary blue disc to the outer edges of the blue disc due to particle drift caused by the EMF of the red disc. There is no angular velocity between the axis and rim of the blue disc, since it is stationary.
The charges will then move from the outer edges of the stationary blue disc to the center edges of the red disc due to relative motion between the center of the red disc and the outer edges of the blue disc (There is relative motion between the inner and outer discs).
It's not motionless, but we are now only rotating the smaller inner disc while everything else remains stationary. It should produce the same output power as a conventional HPG without the counter torque. A stationary ring magnet would be good for this system. A wheel inside a wheel, and the wheel didn't move (Ezekiel's Wheel).
The blue stationary disc is just part of the stationary external circuit. The magnetic field over the blue disc is there to cause the particle drift from the electric field of the red disc with less energy input requirements. This will increase the voltage in the system due to moving through the magnetic field of the blue disc, and this increases the resistance in the system, thus an increase in voltage.
The magnetic field over the blue disc is opposite in polarity to the red disc to avoid the counter torque. If both discs had the same poles, then the counter torque would be there.
No comments on the illustration. Guess that means it doesn't work. Guess that means it can't be modified or built upon to work. Guess I'm wasting my time.
GB
get rid of the disc and you have a TPU
@Grumpy
Which one? The one that everyone thinks is the only Tesla coil but wasn't actually designed by him. Hell, a true Tesla coil is just about every coil design there is.
Mag orientation didn't matter much. There was a bit better Q when the magnet and vertical solenoidal coil was pointed like a compass.
I did also try radial mag on the flat/conical and axial on the solenoid coil and both.
@GB
@Grumpy is right. Get rid of the disk. With a disk you must make a connection (brushes by any other name). That connection must be almost exactly zero ohms. Resistance is Futile. I always wanted to say that :D
BEP
Or add a disk.
Another option to getting rid of the disc, is to keep the disc and avoid the relative motion between the disc and external circuit. This could be accomplished if we could get the magnetic field to rotate with the magnet.
Have 2 rotating magnets with their magnetic fields rotating through 2 stationary discs. Then we could connect the discs in series and extract the current between the discs without brushes.
I'm not sure about this, but I believe the magnetic field would rotate with a Halbach array. Does anyone know the answer to this?
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on November 04, 2009, 08:11:10 AM
Another option to getting rid of the disc, is to keep the disc and avoid the relative motion between the disc and external circuit. This could be accomplished if we could get the magnetic field to rotate with the magnet.
Have 2 rotating magnets with their magnetic fields rotating through 2 stationary discs. Then we could connect the discs in series and extract the current between the discs without brushes.
I'm not sure about this, but I believe the magnetic field would rotate with a Halbach array. Does anyone know the answer to this?
GB
Rotate something that doesn't have mass, or at least not very much mass.
Take a look at this depiction of a TPU. The force field between the collector and the control coils, rotates as it propagates along the control wires, like squeezing water through a hose.
Just transfering the linear momentum of the photons that make up that force field to electrons and positrons in the collector...bada bing...bada boom... Pair production without a billion dollar budget, or a Titan LASER.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/38691
EDIT: no need to store antimatter, just make as you need it. After all the Atomic Energy Commision wouldn't pay SM a visit without good reason...and why them and not just the NSA, or some other security organization?
Always best not to rotate the mass. Either way, it will take energy to create the rotating force field with coils or to rotate the PM mass. Prove the concept, then improve on it.
Mathematically, it's already proven that doubling the radii of the discs and magnets will increase the power output to the 4th power while the input power requirements only goes up by the square thereof.
Do you think this can be done with coils producing a rotating field without spinning the mass, since the strength of the field that is produced with the coils are proportional to the energy being put into the coils? Possibly with other methods, but could it be built and cost effective to replicate from the average garage.
It's the counter torque and brushes that kills the OU properties of the HPG, thus doubling the radii of the discs and magnets also increases the counter torque to the 4th power. Rotate the magnetic field and the brushes can be eliminated. I believe the counter torque can be eliminated if the field rotated and the disc remained stationary with no relative motion between the disc and external circuit. We can achieve OU with the HPG even if the PM mass is rotated, but we must avoid the brushes and keep the counter torque to less than or equivalent to the input requirements of the system.
First, the concept needs to be proven, then we can improve upon it with better methods. The TPU has yet to be replicated showing OU. Is this correct?
I believe if all the research and replication attempts have been put into the HPG that has a field rotating with the magnet and a stationary disc/external circuit, then we may be much closer to achieving OU than a "motionless" variant of it. Rotating the magnet mass may require less energy than it's motionless counter-part according to the mathematics. Just my thoughts on it, but I am open to better ideas.......and the TPU may be a better path to take in the long run.
GB
Instead of rotating the disks, just vibrate them?
Think of a coil at the base of a bell, generating power and charging a capacitor. Then dischard the capacitor into a coil to ring the bell again!
vibrate in such way as to produce pulsating strong magnetic field. Then wind an output coil 90 degrees to kicking coils , we don't want to disturb "magic ring"
path:
oscillator->resonance and accumulation of energy->secondary of Tesla coil->extra coils with radiant currents shifted in phase ->strong pulsating magnetic field (if radiant is created pulsating)->output stage
That what I see after investigating Tesla lectures and notes.
Tip: if you can operate motors with HF currents discovered by Tesla then it has to be a way to change them into strong magnetic field ! THERE IS -> Tesla lecture 1893
TPU secret ? so simple ? Edwin Gray experiment with magnets ...
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/engine_runs_itself.pdf
http://www.free-energy.ws/solid-state-photos.html
In my course on electromagnetics at MIT, we were taught that "no one knows if the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet". This is nonsense, and even Richard Feynman agrees with me. There are a number of simple experiments to determine if the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet, and I have performed many of them. In all of my experiments, the end result was that the magnetic lines of force do *NOT* rotate with the magnet. The very best experiment that you can do is to obtain some ferromagnetic fluid (like "Magnasee" or "Magnaview") that has nano-sized ferromagnetic particles in it. Pour the fluid on a non-conductive platter (like a plate or saucer. or a petri dish), and then place a neodymium ring magnet on the bottom of the plate. You will now see the ferro-fluid arrange itself in a manner that reflects the position and strength of the magnetic lines of force (what Faraday called "tubes of force" in his writings). As you rotate the magnet (on its magnetic axis) on the bottom, you will see that the lines of force do not rotate with the magnet. You *may* see that some of the lines of force undulate a bit as you do this-- but that is because no permanent magnet is perfect, and there may be areas of the magnet that have slightly stronger or weaker magnetic activity.
What this must mean, is that the spinning and/or revolving charged particles in the magnet are somehow affecting (or "disturbing") the local space-time (the aether) that surrounds and permeates the magnet-- in a way that causes these "lines of force" to form. The same thing happens when you pass a current through a coil of wire.
To really understand what is happening with either a permanent magnet, or an electromagnet, one must understand the nature of the aether.
<speculation
The aether, must have small particles in it that resemble a electric and/or magnetic dipole-- probably cylindrical, and spinning like a gyro at relativistic speeds. These particles are probably very small-- on the order of one-half Plank length. The aether, must be a fluid that is extremely dense (many times that of lead), but at the same time it behaves like a super-fluid to objects moving through it. It is clear, that application of an AC electric field can (at least partially) make this fluid more dense (or rigid)-- much like a liquid crystal. It is also clear that a DC electric field can (at least partially) cause this fluid to rarefy. The presence of a charged particle appears to cause the electromagnetic dipoles to line up in a serial fashion-- creating "electric lines of force", that are perpendicular to the surface of the charged particle. The absolute motion of a charged particle through the aether appears to cause the electromagnetic dipoles to form a ring (the "magnetic line of force"), the axis of which is normal to the direction of motion. Since the electromagnetic particles are spinning (like a gyroscope), it takes time for the lines of force to be formed-- for the gyroscopic particles to "precess", and line up in a serial fashion. The faster the particles move in the aether, the greater the energy in the magnetic field (and the larger it's influence.)
Neutral particles (like neutrons) must be formed of an equal number of positive and negative charged particles-- (probably one electron, and one neutron), but because the electric fields are so short, there is no observable electric field outside of th neutral particle-- though one does exist.) If a neutral particle (like a neutron) is moved through the aether, there would also be an associated magnetic field set up for each of the positive and negative particles-- but again, the field is so short that it is not easily observable outside of the neutral particle.
It also appears that the aether can be "dragged along" by matter-- like eddies in a pond. The Earth probably drags the aether around with it as it rotates on it's axis, and revolves around the sun, and as the solar system travels through space (towards the constellation Leo, I think). This is why the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a null result (actually it was slightly positive), and the experiments of Dayton Miller showed a definite positive result. This was the reason that Einstein changed his mind about the existence of the aether-- and declared that his "relativity theory" could not exist without it.
It is highly likely that the magnetic field allows a particle to "drill through" the aether without resistance-- as long as the velocity is maintained. If the velocity is changed (+/- acceleration), then there will be a period of resistance to the change in velocity until the magnetic field reaches equilibrium with the surrounding media (the aether).
In this manner, we can explain inertia as an effect of the magnetic field around moving matter (whether observable or not-- it is still there); and (possibly) we might also explain gravity as a secondary effect caused by the electric fields that all particles have-- with rarefaction of the aether caused by matter, and other bodies of matter moving towards the lower energy state of the rarefied aether.
></speculation>
I don't know if my above speculation of the nature and behavior of the aether is correct. What I *do* know, is that there is a Nobel prize waiting for the person that can provably define the aether, and provide mathematical equations that we can use to engineer things that interact in useful ways with the aether.
Oh, and BTW-- there *is* back-emf/back-torque on any Faraday homopolar motor/generator-- it is a silly notion to think that you somehow get "free energy" from a different physical configuration of a simple electromagnetic device. No Faraday homopolar generator (or motor) violates the laws of electromagnetics or physics, and that's a fact. Any claim to the contrary can be assumed to be measurement error. [Yes-- I am aware of DePalma et. al.-- and I think that what they are claiming can be explained by simple measurement error.] If I am wrong about this (and you want me to admit it), then you need to describe a simple table-top experiment that I can perform myself, that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the laws of electromagnetics are being violated.
If you are looking for "free energy", you would be better off to spend your time experimenting with the zero-point energy field-- and trying to "pump" energy out of that. To me, the most promising area of experimentation would be to follow in the footsteps of Tesla, and explore the field of his "radiant electricity" (aka: "radiant energy").
Quote from: KWP on August 30, 2010, 01:12:00 PM
...
<speculation
The aether, must have small particles in it that resemble a electric and/or magnetic dipole-- probably cylindrical, and spinning like a gyro at relativistic speeds. These particles are probably very small-- on the order of one-half Plank length. The aether, must be a fluid that is extremely dense (many times that of lead), but at the same time it behaves like a super-fluid to objects moving through it. It is clear, that application of an AC electric field can (at least partially) make this fluid more dense (or rigid)-- much like a liquid crystal. It is also clear that a DC electric field can (at least partially) cause this fluid to rarefy. The presence of a charged particle appears to cause the electromagnetic dipoles to line up in a serial fashion-- creating "electric lines of force", that are perpendicular to the surface of the charged particle. The absolute motion of a charged particle through the aether appears to cause the electromagnetic dipoles to form a ring (the "magnetic line of force"), the axis of which is normal to the direction of motion. Since the electromagnetic particles are spinning (like a gyroscope), it takes time for the lines of force to be formed-- for the gyroscopic particles to "precess", and line up in a serial fashion. The faster the particles move in the aether, the greater the energy in the magnetic field (and the larger it's influence.)
...
If you are looking for "free energy", you would be better off to spend your time experimenting with the zero-point energy field-- and trying to "pump" energy out of that. To me, the most promising area of experimentation would be to follow in the footsteps of Tesla, and explore the field of his "radiant electricity" (aka: "radiant energy").
According to Harold Aspden and Wilbert Smith, the entities that make up the Aether "spin".
How would you "pump" energy from the little rotating things that make up the Aether? Can you couple to them and take some of energy from their rotation - like shifting a gear into place?
Quote from: sigma16 on August 30, 2010, 03:22:17 PM
According to Harold Aspden and Wilbert Smith, the entities that make up the Aether "spin".
How would you "pump" energy from the little rotating things that make up the Aether? Can you couple to them and take some of energy from their rotation - like shifting a gear into place?
I never said that. The Zero-Point Energy field does not necessarily have anything to do with the Aether-- although they are probably related. The spinning "entities" are probably affected by the enormous energy in the ZPF. I don't have a clear grasp of it all, and I don't think anyone else does either, or you would see someone getting the Nobel prize... (but not me-- I don't like publicity.) If you could somehow get the spinning electromagnetic entities to self-organize, extracting energy should be relatively easy (since in that state, they would affect charged particles.)
<speculation
Take the Aether, with it's "spinning electromagnetic entities" immersed in a super-dense super-fluid. Now add ultra-high quantities of energy-- more energy in one cubic centimeter of Aether than there is in a 100-megaton H-Bomb. This energy manifests in our 4-space as electromagnetic energy, but in a broad spectrum (for DC to cosmic-rays in energy). Since these spinning electromagnetic entities appear to be affected by charged particles, and we know that the ZP field is a source of virtual particles, it is highly likely that the spinning electromagnetic entities are vibrating all over the place (with vigor!) The ZP energy has a scalar part, but because it is everywhere and directed in all directions (isotropic) there does not appear to be any discernible vector part. The ZP energy exists at or below absolute zero (in our 4-space), and so using some kind of heat engine to extract it will not be possible. In fact, it is possible that ZP energy exists in a complete other dimension from that of our 4-space. The only way that I can see to "trick" the ZP field into giving up some of it's energy, would be to "shock" it-- with very high power pulses of energy. Almost like nuclear EMP, or Tesla's "radiant electricity" apparatus. This might cause the ZPF to "ring", and then we might extract power out of the damped wave that results-- (kind of like dropping a pebble in a pond, and extracting energy out of the ripples that result).
></speculation>
Again, I am at a loss to explain fully the experiences of Tesla with "radiant electricity"/"radiant energy"-- the phenomena just has not been discussed at all in the engineering literature, or taught in any university that I know of. It's almost as if the information is being actively suppressed. Since Tesla's most important unpublished papers (his "Dynamic Theory of Gravity", "Theory of Radiant Electricity", and others) were stolen and are being kept in a safe in Los Alamos, New Mexico along with other top secret documents, we only have experimentation to fall back on. We need to duplicate what Tesla was doing (which should be easy with modern equipment), make astute observations-- and then try to formulate a theory of how (and why) this all works the way it does. In there somewhere is "The Answer"-- the "Holy Grail".
Step 1: Build a magnetically quenched spark gap
Step 2: Build a sufficiently large high-voltage capacitor
Step 3: Build a high-voltage DC power supply
Step 4: Begin experimenting-- but first try to duplicate Tesla's results, and BE CAREFUL!
=====================================
Quote from: KWP on August 30, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
I never said that. The Zero-Point Energy field does not necessarily have anything to do with the Aether-- although they are probably related. The spinning "entities" are probably affected by the enormous energy in the ZPF. I don't have a clear grasp of it all, and I don't think anyone else does either, or you would see someone getting the Nobel prize... (but not me-- I don't like publicity.) If you could somehow get the spinning electromagnetic entities to self-organize, extracting energy should be relatively easy (since in that state, they would affect charged particles.)
I wasn't trying to alter your words, but rather point out what others have stated.
Quote from: KWP on August 30, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
<speculation
Take the Aether, with it's "spinning electromagnetic entities" immersed in a super-dense super-fluid. Now add ultra-high quantities of energy-- more energy in one cubic centimeter of Aether than there is in a 100-megaton H-Bomb. This energy manifests in our 4-space as electromagnetic energy, but in a broad spectrum (for DC to cosmic-rays in energy). Since these spinning electromagnetic entities appear to be affected by charged particles, and we know that the ZP field is a source of virtual particles, it is highly likely that the spinning electromagnetic entities are vibrating all over the place (with vigor!) The ZP energy has a scalar part, but because it is everywhere and directed in all directions (isotropic) there does not appear to be any discernible vector part. The ZP energy exists at or below absolute zero (in our 4-space), and so using some kind of heat engine to extract it will not be possible. In fact, it is possible that ZP energy exists in a complete other dimension from that of our 4-space. The only way that I can see to "trick" the ZP field into giving up some of it's energy, would be to "shock" it-- with very high power pulses of energy. Almost like nuclear EMP, or Tesla's "radiant electricity" apparatus. This might cause the ZPF to "ring", and then we might extract power out of the damped wave that results-- (kind of like dropping a pebble in a pond, and extracting energy out of the ripples that result).
></speculation>
Again, I am at a loss to explain fully the experiences of Tesla with "radiant electricity"/"radiant energy"-- the phenomena just has not been discussed at all in the engineering literature, or taught in any university that I know of. It's almost as if the information is being actively suppressed. Since Tesla's most important unpublished papers (his "Dynamic Theory of Gravity", "Theory of Radiant Electricity", and others) were stolen and are being kept in a safe in Los Alamos, New Mexico along with other top secret documents, we only have experimentation to fall back on. We need to duplicate what Tesla was doing (which should be easy with modern equipment), make astute observations-- and then try to formulate a theory of how (and why) this all works the way it does. In there somewhere is "The Answer"-- the "Holy Grail".
Step 1: Build a magnetically quenched spark gap
Step 2: Build a sufficiently large high-voltage capacitor
Step 3: Build a high-voltage DC power supply
Step 4: Begin experimenting-- but first try to duplicate Tesla's results, and BE CAREFUL!
=====================================
Several here have followed your steps to various degrees and reproduced some of Tesla's results. It is like you say: shock it, it ripples, but the ripple is not a form that is easy to use. An alternate method is to shock it, it changes density, shock it agian in a different location and it moves. Like a peristaltic pump.
@Gravityblock,
The Faraday Paradox involves a feature that you are apparently unaware of:
1.-The spinning disc generates current between a stationary magnet stator.
2.-The disc and magnets generate current when spun attached to each other.
3.-The disc generates no power when the magnet stator is revolved around
the motionless disc.
which would seem to violate his (faraday's) law of electromagnetic induction.
Quote from: synchro1 on August 31, 2010, 12:47:59 AM
@Gravityblock,
The Faraday Paradox involves a feature that you are apparently unaware of:
1.-The spinning disc generates current between a stationary magnet stator.
2.-The disc and magnets generate current when spun attached to each other.
3.-The disc generates no power when the magnet stator is revolved around
the motionless disc.
Wether the magnet is spinning or not is irrelevant, the field presented by this orientation is on a prependicular plane to the direction of spin, so the field itself remains stationary, always. (exception given to inconsstencies in the magnetic material)
the presence of a magnetic field, upon copper, has the effect of changing the electrons vectoral-polarity.
essentially, the "average" vectoral direction of the magnetic moment, is influenced by the magnetic field.
While the copper is stationary, this is just a sort of "polarization-biasing"
But when the copper and/or the field are moving relative to one another, this biased-polarization creates the phenomenon we know as "electricity".
Whish is essentially, the propegation of the relative changes in polarity through the copper-mass.
Science inteprets this as a "flow" of electrons.
But in reality, this is only an apparent flow.
its more like "the wave" that crowds do in a stadium.
theres probably quite a few possible solutions to your problem, but this one here i think would be among one of the easiest to construct on your own.
There are 2 key things that must be accomplished to achieve the desired result.
1) the "external circuit" within the EMF of the disk, must not be in motion, relative to the disk.
and
2) the physical point of contact, between the spinning conductor and the stationary outputs, must be arranged such that there is minimal relative motion between the two.
Here is one example of how these two conditions could be met. The only other prerequisit is that the rotational components of the circuit extend far beyond the magnetic field.
I drew these with the wires exposed, but they are better served rigidly attached to or through the axle.
It is wrong to say the magnetic field rotates with the magnet or is stationary. We should say, a moving charge induces a magnetic field, and this induced magnetic field will follow or move with the charge. There is no such thing as a static magnetic field. A magnetic field can be moving without it changing in direction or in strength. There is no paradox when one uses charge motion to analyze the HPM.
GB
The magnetic field is stationary.
It is a property of space itself just like light is and just like radiowaves are.
This is like when you rotate your finger in a bowl of water to create movement in the water.
The water is no part of your finger and the swirling motion is a secondary effect resulting from the primary movement of your finger.
Magnets need to be moved to induce currents.
It is the motion that is converted into electricity.
No movement=no electricity.
It is wrong to think the energy comes from the magnet.
You can stare all day long at that bowl of water but it will not do anything by itself unless you start swirling it with your finger.
A lightbulb is similar you need to put in energy to make it shine.
Bulbs do not shine by themselves neither do magnets put out energy.
Quote from: KWP on August 30, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
If you could somehow get the spinning electromagnetic entities to self-organize, extracting energy should be relatively easy (since in that state, they would affect charged particles.)
<speculation
This might cause the ZPF to "ring", and then we might extract power out of the damped wave that results-- (kind of like dropping a pebble in a pond, and extracting energy out of the ripples that result).
></speculation>
Since Tesla's most important unpublished papers (his "Dynamic Theory of Gravity", "Theory of Radiant Electricity", and others) were stolen and are being kept in a safe in Los Alamos, New Mexico along with other top secret documents, we only have experimentation to fall back on. We need to duplicate what Tesla was doing (which should be easy with modern equipment), make astute observations-- and then try to formulate a theory of how (and why) this all works the way it does. In there somewhere is "The Answer"-- the "Holy Grail".
Step 1: Build a magnetically quenched spark gap
Step 2: Build a sufficiently large high-voltage capacitor
Step 3: Build a high-voltage DC power supply
Step 4: Begin experimenting-- but first try to duplicate Tesla's results, and BE CAREFUL!
=====================================
A magnetic field should point the entities in the same direction.
How would someone know where Tesla's papers are located and what the titles are? Does this come from the interview with his nephew? He would probably know these things.
I have steps 1 thru 4 standing by. If you can set this up as well, we can compare results.
Quote from: gravityblock on August 31, 2010, 06:51:08 AM
It is wrong to say the magnetic field rotates with the magnet or is stationary. We should say, a moving charge induces a magnetic field, and this induced magnetic field will follow or move with the charge. There is no such thing as a static magnetic field. A magnetic field can be moving without it changing in direction or in strength. There is no paradox when one uses charge motion to analyze the HPM.
GB
I believe you have this correct!
The field is not forced to be stationary OR is it forced to rotate with the spinning magnet.
If it does no work by staying stationary, then it is stationary.
If it does no work by rotating, then it rotates.
It's only by trapping the field that forces the field to generate a current, and this takes work.
Otherwise the field sticks with the moving charge, or the charge sticks with the moving field, providing no current flows.
I agree, the HPG is no exception.
A moving charge alone does not create a magnetic field.
The electrons that are dragged by this moving charge are responsible for the electricity and the magnetic effects you see.
But don't be mistaken they are not the source of energy, they only serve to convert the energy between kinetic and electric.
The field lines of the magnet cutting a wire, drag the electrons along the wire.
This is known as induction and it creates resistance which is why we can measure it.
So you are actually braking or slowing down the magnet and many systems rely on this mechanism like for example eddy current braking systems.
It is fair to say that when there are no electrons around, there won't be any resistance to the flow, be it a charge or a magnet.
In the case of the charge the movement can build up to infinity because it has a massless orgin.
In the case of the magnet things are slightly different because it does have mass and so it will feel air resistance aswell as gyroscopic forces.
So in essence, a moving magnet cannot go anywhere near the maximum speed of a moving massless charge.
These are still different things because the magnet is usually moved by putting in kinetic energy or by putting in electrical energy through a coil nearby.
The moving charge on the other hand is moved by nature.
Nature will restore equilibrium between two points in space that have a potential difference between them once it is offered a path to do so.
If there are electrons in this path, magnetism aswell as resistance and electrical energy show up.
Perhaps I didn't "say it right", or perhaps I was misunderstood. What I MEANT to say, is that the magnetic LINES OF FORCE DO NOT ROTATE if the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis.
Please understand this: The "magnetic field" is a term that means the whole of the magnetic field-- it is a scalar, with a "curl" vector. The "magnetic flux" is a term that means how intense a portion of the magnetic field is in a certain area. In any magnetic field, you will have areas of flux that "bunch together"-- forming what we call "lines of force", and what Faraday called "tubes of force".
This video shows you how to make your own ferrofluid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsQh1AT6qUE
In the above video you can see how the ferrofluid follows the "lines of force" that surround the permanent magnet. If you made a coil of wire, and ran a large enough current through the wire, you would see these same lines of force form. And, just like with the permanent magnet, if you rotate the coil of wire on it's magnetic axis, the lines of force would not rotate with it.
In order for a magnetic field to get charges to move (in a conductor or otherwise), the magnetic LINES OF FORCE must move in relation to the charge. The charge will move at right angles to the magnetic field. Positive charges will move in the opposite direction that negative charges will move.
If you have an electron moving in space, there is a magnetic field formed around it. If you try to accelerate the electron, there will be a counter-force to the acceleration until the magnetic field "catches up". A positive charge (like a proton) will do the same thing, but the magnetic field will have the opposite sign.
In Faraday's homopolar generator, when the magnet moves with the copper disc (and electricity is generated)-- no law of physics is being violated if the LINES OF FORCE in the magnetic field do not move with the magnet as it is rotated on it's magnetic axis. This is the ONLY scenario that matches the experimental data.
View this video to understand what I am talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWO7O5hvzWE
Now, you might ask yourself WHY is this so important? Well, I will tell you. In all of the electronics schools, and engineering programs, and physics programs in almost all of the universities, we are taught that "we don't know"-- when the real truth is that we DO know that the LINES OF FORCE do NOT rotate when the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis. This means that:
1) We are being LIED TO, and probably ON PURPOSE-- (Why? Is it because it gives Aether theories more credibility, and we lie so that we can continue to pretend that relativity "theory" is 100% correct? WHY does someone want to keep all of this a secret?-- Is someone afraid of what we might discover if we look at things with the right perspective?)
2) Electric machines are designed everyday, and eddy currents (usually a bad thing) need to be minimized. This would be much easier to do if engineers knew the TRUTH about this non-rotating lines-of-force phenomena.
3) Many assumptions in physics are based on the philosophy that the magnetic field comes from the magnet, when (in fact) the magnetic field comes from the Aether-- the magnet is only "disturbing" the Aether, and a side effect of that disturbance is that a magnetic field forms in the Aether. It is a property of the magnet that does this, and it is probably revolving charges in the permanent magnet that are responsible for the interaction with the Aether-- (a reasonable assumption, since the phenomena can be duplicated by running a current of moving charges through a coil of wire.). This change in perspective has huge implications, and may cause many physics theories to be invalid or incomplete.
This always brings me back to the story of Tesla. He didn't believe what anyone told him about physics, unless he could prove the assertion with an experiment. He was at odds with some of the greatest minds in his day-- not because he was intellectually their inferior, but rather because he had determined experimentally that they were wrong.
Tesla worked with magnets, rotating magnetic fields, and high-voltage disruptive discharges (among many other things), but I am certain that he noticed many anomalous effects that were "interesting" enough to explore further-- all of which led him to a correct electromagnetic theory (and maybe even a correct theory of gravity.)
If we duplicate Tesla's most important experiments, and watch for the anomalous behavior, we will (eventually) be led down the same path that Tesla once walked. We too may be able to cobble together a "correct" electromagnetic theory-- and may even be lucky enough to solve the gravity puzzle.
Yeah, the magnetic field is in the aether. No sense arguing about that. Maybe the rotating field of the aligned particles in the magnet align the rotating entities in the aether.
Fast forward and we find we can move the aether itself, perpendicular to a magnetic field, and both perpendicular to a conductor (or separated plates) and induce a current. Einstein and his gang did put some math to this in an indirect sort of way, and experiments were performed that proved Relativity along the way.
A quick study will say that if you can move the medium itself then gravity should not be a problem, and he is probably correct.
The problem with it all is that people who know these things can only speak briefly about them. A few sketches and clues, bit of theory, pinch of salt. Years go by and nothing comes of it. It's like a farmer going out to a pasture and telling his cows that they are free. They never leave the pasture.
If you want the cow out of the pasture, you have to lead him out, protesting the entire way.
Do steps 1 thru 4. Spark gap is low rep rate so use very high voltage if you can. You can replace the magnetic quenching with a delay line as shown in avalanche transistor circuits. Apply the pulse to very long coil if fine wire - 1500 feet or more, 28 AWG, HT magnet wire works great.
You can detect a high frequency oscillation - the ripple of the aether.
I don't think it's done on purpose.
The stuff in the books is 100 years old incorrect and incomplete and they just don't take the effort to correct things.
It's a classic story really.
If you wanna know the truth, you will have to find out yourself.
But what i don't understand is why so many people still think that magnets are going to power our world one day, without the turbines that are driving the generator.
It's not that hard to understand the energy comes from the steam turbines, wind turbines,waterwheel, whatever is driving the generator, and not from the magnets themselves.
Yet most people keep thinking magnets can power things..
That to me is worse then what's written wrong in the books.
Quote from: sigma16 on August 31, 2010, 11:11:07 PM
Einstein and his gang did put some math to this in an indirect sort of way, and experiments were performed that proved Relativity along the way.
relativity is not proven... it was, and remains, a theory. one with various issues at that.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 31, 2010, 11:19:37 PM
relativity is not proven... it was, and remains, a theory. one with various issues at that.
Relativity is not a "theory" at all, but rather a pretty good mathematical
MODEL that does not hold true when things become very small or very large in scale. But, it's a great model to engineer things until a better model comes along, or until we actually come up with a
REAL theory that explains everything without excuses. Einstein said that "matter causes space to bend", but he never went on to tell us
WHAT the "space-time fabric" actually
IS, or
WHY it "bends in the presence of matter". (Actually, the word "bend" is not a good one-- the space-time fabric is affected by matter in a manner that causes local space to rarefy-- or "become less dense". The term "bending" is more suited to 2 dimensions as opposed to our 4-dimensional observable universe.)
Pick any current Aether theory, and at least there is an attempt to explain
WHAT the "space-time fabric" is made out of, and how it behaves in the presence of matter and energy. Aether theory lays a foundation for explaining the Zero Point Field (ZPF), and Zero Point Energy (ZPE), while the relativity math model has nothing to say about this. In addition, almost all modern Aether theories have something to say about "spin", while the relativity math model is almost silent on this issue.
Tesla disagreed with Einstein, and he said that in the future (his) Aether theory will prevail. It's too bad that Tesla's Aether theory was stolen from his safe, so we will never know what Tesla had written down, but it is impossible to keep truth hidden forever. A mad friend of mine said: "Every closet has a skeleton, and skeletons don't like closets!"-- I know that if we keep digging, we will find the answers we are looking for.
Quote from: KWP on August 31, 2010, 11:52:03 PM
Relativity is not a "theory" at all, but rather a pretty good mathematical MODEL that does not hold true when things become very small or very large in scale. But, it's a great model to engineer things until a better model comes along, or until we actually come up with a REAL theory that explains everything without excuses. Einstein said that "matter causes space to bend", but he never went on to tell us WHAT the "space-time fabric" actually IS, or WHY it "bends in the presence of matter". (Actually, the word "bend" is not a good one-- the space-time fabric is affected by matter in a manner that causes local space to rarefy-- or "become less dense". The term "bending" is more suited to 2 dimensions as opposed to our 4-dimensional observable universe.)
Pick any current Aether theory, and at least there is an attempt to explain WHAT the "space-time fabric" is made out of, and how it behaves in the presence of matter and energy. Aether theory lays a foundation for explaining the Zero Point Field (ZPF), and Zero Point Energy (ZPE), while the relativity math model has nothing to say about this. In addition, almost all modern Aether theories have something to say about "spin", while the relativity math model is almost silent on this issue.
Tesla disagreed with Einstein, and he said that in the future (his) Aether theory will prevail. It's too bad that Tesla's Aether theory was stolen from his safe, so we will never know what Tesla had written down, but it is impossible to keep truth hidden forever. A mad friend of mine said: "Every closet has a skeleton, and skeletons don't like closets!"-- I know that if we keep digging, we will find the answers we are looking for.
it is a theory, hence the name, 'relativity the special and general
theory', by einstein himself... ::)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3H46AAAAMAAJ&dq=relativity&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false
@KWP
Did you try rotating the ferrofluid? and see how the lines of force rotate with the fluid and are not stationary?
If everyone spent as much time experimenting as they do nit-picking the words of others, we would have everything figured out by now.
Nice video of ferrofluid in a rotating magnetic field (with axial DC field):
http://scitation.aip.org/phf/gallery/2003-lorenz.jsp
Below is a quote from a publication done by Jorge Guala-Valverde and Pedro Mazzoni related to experiments with a Confined B-Field Homopolar Dynamotor (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36755129/B-Field-Confinement).
QuoteA few words on the (in archaic language) “rotatingâ€/“fixed†field lines controversy can be said in the light of our experiments. For open configurations all happens as if B lines rotate anchored to the magnet, whereas the above lines appear to be attached to the whole magnetized bulk when dealing with confined arrangements
Below is a quote found in the Conclusions of the paper titled Farraday's Final Riddle (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043991/Faraday-s-Final-Riddle)
Quote
The lines of force rotate with a magnet upon its North-South axis. The emf, that is produced in a nearby circuit by a magnet, is caused by the cutting of the circuit by the lines of force of that magnet. It is not produced unless there is cutting of the circuit by those lines of force; additionally the cutting must be in one direction (net), or be by unequal force lines, if cut in two directions (net).
The Faraday Generator phenomenon is caused by the cutting of the stationary circuit by the lines of force of the magnet, as the magnet rotates. It has previously been supposed that the magnet is cutting its own lines of force.
When a disc is set rotating near the pole of the magnet, the results are anomalous. The results are fully explained as being due to involvement of only a portion of the whole circuit. 'Faraday's Law' of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. One single general rule is missing. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule.
Below is a quote from a publication, titled Paradox 2 (http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/paradox2.pdf), by Robert Distinti
Quote
Proponents of the rotating field suggest that energy is developed as the field is “cut†by the stationary closing path while others propose that the energy is developed in the disk which means that the field can not be rotating. New Electromagnetism (Specifically New Magnetism) teaches that the above question is moot since the field does rotate; however, no energy is developed in the closing path. This sounds like a contradictory statement to classically trained scientists and engineers; however, the Paradox 2 experiment clearly shows that power can be developed without cutting flux lines
For those interested in building the Paradox 2 device, here's a paper on the exact details (http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/Build_pdx2_book.pdf).
Here's a quick movie demonstrating the Paradox 2 device (http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/pdx2.MPG).
In a PM, there are moving charges in a current loop which induces a magnetic field. The induced magnetic field will move with these moving charges. The field will move with the charges, regardless of the movement of the PM itself. The field of a stationary PM is moving, but the field isn't changing in direction or strength, thus there is no "changing magnetic field in time" to induce a charge in a stationary external conductor, thus the need for relative motion between the PM and conductor in order to have current flow in regular induction. In the Faraday Disc, there must be relative motion between the disk and external circuit.
Some of my brushless HPG/HPM designs are based on the concept of creating "virtual relative motion" by properly understanding the Motional Electromotive Force in order to get rid of the brushes to reduce losses. It can also be used to increase the voltage without an engineering nightmare. If my brushless designs work based on virtual relative motion, then I doubt OU will be achieved since the counter torque will still be there.
GB
you can reduce the backtorque by allowing the disc to precess:
Getting back to harnessing the Aether or ZPE, "Spherics" offered a method of doing this:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4297.msg83207#msg83207
Harold Aspden speaks of "vacuum spin induction" here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ImHIZVZRLkYJ:www.aspden.org/books/Asp/1825.htm+aspden+%22vacuum+spin%22+1996&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I wonder how many people think this is any kind of proof that magnetic field lines are fixed in space!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWO7O5hvzWE
He has only done half of the experiment.
I just did an experiment, shot an arrow into space! yes, I shot it up and never seen it come down, so it must of went into space!
I suggest he try rotating the monitor and keep the magnet still. If the field then moves on the screen, I would believe the field lines are fixed in space.
I think the main thing missing is some type of ANALYTICAL skill.
lumen,
i agree with you....it should be a stationary magnet...and rotate the monitor.
still...glad he made a video of it
what if we had like a .. Copper Sphere.
with a ring magnet inside of it.
and rotate the whole thing.. like a globe.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 01, 2010, 10:59:57 PM
what if we had like a .. Copper Sphere.
with a ring magnet inside of it.
and rotate the whole thing.. like a globe.
Hi guys. I just dipped in here. I've been following this thread off and on. I just want to point out in that video link by Harvey - that if the field is divorced from the material of the magnet and simply 'orbits' around it - or manifests around it - then it would not be moved if the magnet is spun as shown in that video. In other words it is simply and entirely divorced from the material of the magnet itself.
I don't see this as a paradox. I see it as proof that the field is - indeed - independent of the magnet itself. Free floating - if you see what I mean. It's orbit is trapped within the material of the magnet - it belongs to the magnet - yet it, itself is 'free floating'. In point of fact this may be a kind of 'proof' that the magnetic field is fundamental, possibly material in origin, and NOT reliant on an electromagnetic interactions to manifest. That would be my conclusion - in any event. A fundamental force?
And - that it is not effected by the Earth's magnetic field is further proof that one magnetic field is shielded. It's able to retain its structure against another magnetic field provided only that it's own orbiting fields are NOT broken.
Anyway. Yet again. That's how I see it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Not sure if any of that's clear. Let's see if this question explains it better. If the magnetic field is simply independent of the actual atomic structure of the magnet and if it were moving through the magnet and around it without interacting with the atomic structure of the magnet - then why would it be moved when the magnet is twisted? No reason to anticipate such a response.
? Hope that does it. ;D
Quote from: scotty1 on September 27, 2008, 07:20:24 PM
Hi all.
Here is my test on Faraday's Paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8)
It clearly shows that the field does not rotate with the ring magnet.
Cheers
Scotty
And Scotty - your early questions here. I have one for you. What happens when you place some iron or some magnetisable material on the drill head? I suspect you'd get the magnet to rotate. It's when you induce fields through space that one can get a sympathetic response. Otherwise it's my belief that in a permanent magnetic field one has actually separated some kind of magnetic material or magnetic field - from it's previous housing or 'abodes' inside the magnet.
Of interest here is this. If this is true then it should be possible to see material separation of some sort within the magnet itself. I have tested this on neodymium magnets - a cylnidrical bar magnet - and found a small hollow in its centre. I've never cut a ferrite type magnet but suspect that this may not be so evident as I believe these magnets are constructed under pressure without heat. I think it needs heat to allow the material rearrangement of the cyrstalline structures. That literally opens up the hollow which somehow relates to the mass of this field. Sorry if this is obtuse. It's the best I can do to explain it.
Regards,
Rosemary
@ Rose
Ed Leedskalnin talked about this. he caled it "the space the tiny magnets were in" when the metal was hot, and under a magnetic field.
the field is in motion all the time, but its not the same kind of motion that physical matter endures, if that makes any sense.
When you turn the magnet, the field does actually turn "with it".
(personally i think i have scientifically proven that the field propegates faster than you turn it, but there are those that would argue against that to the death of them..)
the field presented in the HPG is what we consider "uniform", that is, on the macro-scale out here where we sit, the field presents an ~ equal force around any given concentric circle, around the common axis. the effect of this is that the effective field represents a "stationary" event in the space it occupies.
so, when one says "the feild does not move", in a newtonian sense, they are correct. Which is what matters to us, when we actually USE it.
If we zoom in, we can see that the outer extremities of the field are not uniform. despite our best efforts to create a perfectly symetrical disk, (nanostructures omitted), we are not perfect.
It presents itself in a "jagged-line" motion around the extremities.
and "streaks" around the face
this is important to us when we actually STUDY it.
It's not the moving field that matters, its the changes in the moving field. were it a perfectly symmetrical magnet, we could not detect its movement at all.
the field passes through everything,
its not the movement of the field that affects us,
its the movement of changes in the field.
If those changes are too subtle for us to observe on a grand scale, then for our purpose, the thought that it doesnt move can have the same result as an approach with the knowledge that it does.
If you talk to an Engineer he tells you that electrons flow. Talk to a technician, he tells you no they dont, Current flows.
and the two of them can sit at a coffee table and argue the point for days.. meanwhile, you push the button and your computer still turns on.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Think about this, the Earth. if you look at the geological data, study the movement of the core, and the coesponding shifts in the earths magnetic field. you see that it moves right through us and we dont even notice it. we dont see wrenches flying across the garage, and such... these changes are very small compared to us.
but take for instance a Goose. whos brain posses a tiny cluster of crystals that oscillate in a vectoral direction associated with the earths field. These changes throw the goose patterns off by hundreds of miles.
its all relative really..
When it comes to this device, and the manner in which it is used.
"the field is stationary".
a more accurate terminoligy, would be to say that
"the distortion in space the magnetic field creates, is stationary."
in either case, we dont see it moving in the HPG
so its esoteric or something.....
If you take a coil and place it inside a conducting sphere when you energise the coil a magnetic field will be produced that is very consistent with the Earths magnetic field. You can detect all sorts of magnetic poles produced by eddy currents in the sphere. Free electrons will drift around magnetic field lines. When you change the magnetic field line configuration they will try to drift around the magnetic field line they are tethered to. Its like you are swinging a ball on the end of a rope. When you walk east the electron rotation moves east with you. The electron magnetic field tethers it to permeating magnetic field lines. When the magnetic field lines shift you get electron movement. Notice these are magnetic field lines. In between the magnetic field lines there is still some sort of magnetic something. Magnetic field lines appear at least to me like the isobars on a weather map. This leads me to believe that the aether is comprised of a magnetic fluid. Through this magnetic fluid any movements of matter are transmitted. It is very evident there is inertia at play when we energise a coil of high self induction. Nothing happens. There is a phase shift between when we expect the current to flow and when it does. Like the magnetic fluid didnt want to move and then when it did it kept moving.
Hi Sm0ky
It's my opinion that you guys complicate things. It's a measure of your intelligence - but it's actually not necessary. The answer is simple - if Leedskalnin is right. Effectively if everything actually just reduces to orbiting magnetic fields - then here's the thinking.
Assume that there's a dipole in a field. Assume that we cannot detect that particle because it is too small and too fast. Our most accurate measure of anything is light. It's also the fastest thing we can use as a gauge to determine velocity. Therefore if anything moved faster than light speed - and if it were also smaller - then light would not find it. And, again, provided also, that it was always in motion. Clearly if it were motionless then - sooner or later - a photon would interact with it. I see this in the mind's eye as a tortoise trying to catch a rabbit.
If that something - that orbiting field of dipoles - comprises a magnetic field - then it would behave exactly as it's shown to behave here. The big leap - the great divide - is to acknowledge that there's any possibility that there's a material property to the magnetic field. And then to acknowledge that if anything moved at greater than light speed - how on earth or in heaven - would we ever find it? It would stay dark.
Then you'll see there's a whole lot of paradoxes that become immediately explicable. That's my argument. Maybe - one day - I'll persuade you to dip in and look at the thesis here Sm0ky. I'd be very glad of your input.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM
edited
the magnetic field exists on an atomic level. and this is where induction begins.
the copper too, has a field of its own. be-it however small we cannot detect it by normal means.
when this turns through the magnetic field, it encounters resistance. This is the same effect that causes two magnets to repel. But in this scase, on the tiny tiny scale, it is the atomic forces battling it out, which manifests itself as an electrical phenomenon. the greater the motion, the greater the countering electrical manifestation.
The relationship between the mass of the copper, the force*distance of motion, the electricity produced, and the strength of the magnetic field can be used to derrive the any of the four values, if given the other three.
This is very important.
What is also important, is that when you set up a magnetic-beam, and have a shielded-oscillator, such that it periodically projects a change in flux onto a piece of metal, inside a magnetic field: it heats the metal, corresponding precisely to the strength*area of the affected field and the frequency of change.
Its all part of a much larger puzzle, which all ties back to the categorial subject matter of this thread. The Aether.
p.s. if your mind is now going in circles inside your head, just slap yourself in the face a few times, that usually works......
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 02, 2010, 04:23:37 AM
... And then to acknowledge that if anything moved at greater than light speed - how on earth or in heaven - would we ever find it? It would stay dark.
Then you'll see there's a whole lot of paradoxes that become immediately explicable. That's my argument. Maybe - one day - I'll persuade you to dip in and look at the thesis here Sm0ky. I'd be very glad of your input.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM
edited
Thats probably gonna take a little more persuading... i only made it to page 12, when you started talking about the zippon rings.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AM
the magnetic field exists on an atomic level. and this is where induction begins.
Where? It is known that an atom may be imbalanced due to sundry valence conditions - but there is no KNOWN magnetic field in an atom. It is only KNOWN to have magnetic type properties.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AMthe copper too, has a field of its own. be-it however small we cannot detect it by normal means.
If it cannot be detected then the ASSUMPTION is made that copper also has a magnetic field - however large or small.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AMwhen this turns through the magnetic field, it encounters resistance. This is the same effect that causes two magnets to repel. But in this scase, on the tiny tiny scale, it is the atomic forces battling it out, which manifests itself as an electrical phenomenon. the greater the motion, the greater the countering electrical manifestation.
Again - these observations are based on hypothesis. Why not consider Leedskalnin's hypothesis. He seemingly was moving 'something' to lighten the loads of those rocks, one assumes. And I very much doubt he managed to change that granite to something back to granite. It takes enormous energy to change the material properties of an atom. But it doesn't take much to change the nature of bound material. Look at what Hutchinson does to vary the cyrstalline structures of aluminium - or for that matter what he does to levitate various unmagnetisable objects. But he certainly is not changing those atoms. Only their distribution in space.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AMThe relationship between the mass of the copper, the force*distance of motion, the electricity produced, and the strength of the magnetic field can be used to derrive the any of the four values, if given the other three.
This is very important.
I agree with this. It is always dependent on the material of the atoms themselves. But if the 'binding' of these atoms were the result of an extraneous field - then the atoms' position in space could be varied without changing the property of that atoms themselves. You see this perhaps?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AMWhat is also important, is that when you set up a magnetic-beam, and have a shielded-oscillator, such that it periodically projects a change in flux onto a piece of metal, inside a magnetic field: it heats the metal, corresponding precisely to the strength*area of the affected field and the frequency of change.
That would be consistent with all energy equations. I have no quarrels with this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the measurements of the forces - all forces - on mass. If e=mc^2 then the more mass there is the more energy that it would hold.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AMIts all part of a much larger puzzle, which all ties back to the categorial subject matter of this thread. The Aether.
I entirely agree.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:23:57 AMp.s. if your mind is now going in circles inside your head, just slap yourself in the face a few times, that usually works.....
;D It's always going around in circles. And if I had to slap myself every time - by now I'd just be more bruises than person. LOL
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 04:36:34 AM
Thats probably gonna take a little more persuading... i only made it to page 12, when you started talking about the zippon rings.
;D Then hopefully the videos will make this clearer. I've heard many such complaints. And they're valid. LOL.
Quote from: sparks on September 02, 2010, 04:14:59 AM
If you take a coil and place it inside a conducting sphere when you energise the coil a magnetic field will be produced that is very consistent with the Earths magnetic field. You can detect all sorts of magnetic poles produced by eddy currents in the sphere. Free electrons will drift around magnetic field lines. When you change the magnetic field line configuration they will try to drift around the magnetic field line they are tethered to. Its like you are swinging a ball on the end of a rope. When you walk east the electron rotation moves east with you. The electron magnetic field tethers it to permeating magnetic field lines. When the magnetic field lines shift you get electron movement. Notice these are magnetic field lines. In between the magnetic field lines there is still some sort of magnetic something. Magnetic field lines appear at least to me like the isobars on a weather map. This leads me to believe that the aether is comprised of a magnetic fluid. Through this magnetic fluid any movements of matter are transmitted. It is very evident there is inertia at play when we energise a coil of high self induction. Nothing happens. There is a phase shift between when we expect the current to flow and when it does. Like the magnetic fluid didnt want to move and then when it did it kept moving.
Hi Sparky. I missed this. Very well said. I entirely agree with all that you've written here. And really well put. I rather envy you your clarity of expression. I get way too convoluted.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 02, 2010, 03:52:51 AM
@ Rose
Ed Leedskalnin talked about this. he caled it "the space the tiny magnets were in" when the metal was hot, and under a magnetic field.
the field is in motion all the time, but its not the same kind of motion that physical matter endures, if that makes any sense.
When you turn the magnet, the field does actually turn "with it".
(personally i think i have scientifically proven that the field propegates faster than you turn it, but there are those that would argue against that to the death of them..)
the field presented in the HPG is what we consider "uniform", that is, on the macro-scale out here where we sit, the field presents an ~ equal force around any given concentric circle, around the common axis. the effect of this is that the effective field represents a "stationary" event in the space it occupies.
so, when one says "the feild does not move", in a newtonian sense, they are correct. Which is what matters to us, when we actually USE it.
If we zoom in, we can see that the outer extremities of the field are not uniform. despite our best efforts to create a perfectly symetrical disk, (nanostructures omitted), we are not perfect.
It presents itself in a "jagged-line" motion around the extremities.
and "streaks" around the face
this is important to us when we actually STUDY it.
It's not the moving field that matters, its the changes in the moving field. were it a perfectly symmetrical magnet, we could not detect its movement at all.
the field passes through everything,
its not the movement of the field that affects us,
its the movement of changes in the field.
If those changes are too subtle for us to observe on a grand scale, then for our purpose, the thought that it doesnt move can have the same result as an approach with the knowledge that it does.
If you talk to an Engineer he tells you that electrons flow. Talk to a technician, he tells you no they dont, Current flows.
and the two of them can sit at a coffee table and argue the point for days.. meanwhile, you push the button and your computer still turns on.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Think about this, the Earth. if you look at the geological data, study the movement of the core, and the coesponding shifts in the earths magnetic field. you see that it moves right through us and we dont even notice it. we dont see wrenches flying across the garage, and such... these changes are very small compared to us.
but take for instance a Goose. whos brain posses a tiny cluster of crystals that oscillate in a vectoral direction associated with the earths field. These changes throw the goose patterns off by hundreds of miles.
its all relative really..
When it comes to this device, and the manner in which it is used.
"the field is stationary".
a more accurate terminoligy, would be to say that
"the distortion in space the magnetic field creates, is stationary."
in either case, we dont see it moving in the HPG
so its esoteric or something.....
Figure 12: Photograph of 50.8mm ring magnet with the north pole facing the
camera with different color LEDs around the perimeter of the lens.
http://sirzerp.blip.tv/#1468250
http://www.nanomagnetics.us/
.... The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field
Quote from: wings on September 02, 2010, 08:54:36 AM
Figure 12: Photograph of 50.8mm ring magnet with the north pole facing the
camera with different color LEDs around the perimeter of the lens.
http://sirzerp.blip.tv/#1468250
http://www.nanomagnetics.us/
.... The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field
Here's a quote from Sirzerp in regards to his publication on Photographing Magnetic Lines of Constant Scaler Potential,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28943933/Photographing-Magnetic-Lines-of-Constant-Scalar-Potential ,
"I should stress the lines that we have photographed are not B- field flux lines, but instead a form of magnetic ‘voltage’ equipotential lines."Using a lens with a micron thin layer of sandwiched ferro fluid to map external magnetic fields via optic affects of the field on the magnetic fluid. Red, yellow and green radial LED's are spaced evenly; facing inward into the edge of the lens. The light from the LED's warps around the magnets as it passes through the fluid. This is the basic version video with one magnet from youtube user, SirZerp,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6C6f2nu0U . For more information that you ever wanted to know about Sirzerp's work, you can download and view the pictures and movies at
http://www.sendspace.com/folder/on9dhg The Dynamic Etalon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxCYvDjFRM , was conceived and developed as an economical tool for magnetic research. Basically, this unique lens is a Fabry-Perot Interferometer combined with a modified Hele-Shaw cell. The nano particle mixture within the lens respond dynamically in the presence of a magnetic field. Additional information on the Dynamic Etalon method,
http://www.nanomagnetics.us/dynamic%20etalon.htmGB
Hi wings and gravityblock,
Those are great links. I've actually stored the most of them for reference. But what we're looking at is how the 'lines of force' resolve themselves under conditions of 'induction'. I wonder if this results in some kind of quantum resolution where the 'charge' distribution of the field needs to be perfectly distributed. It is my opinion that this is the required or preferred state of the 'field'. It's the closest it can come to equilibrium or to a 'rest state'. And hence those symmetries? They're blow away - just so perfect.
But I'm still inclined to suspect that the field itself can be entirely divorced from its material source. In which case that would certainly explain the Faraday paradox. It just begs some rather awkward questions related to the material properties of a magnetic field. I think that classicists should revisit these questions. LOL.
Regards,
Rosemary
hi all
i'd like to throw an idea into the magnetic 'melting pot'...
over the years there's been a lot of discussion about the possibility of the existence of magnetic monopoles
this seems to be to be a 'non argument'
it appears to me that what we call the 'poles' of a magnet are in fact either the convergence, or divergence, of the magnetic spin field (what we call the magnetic field lines)
we see the similarity between, say, a bar magnet and an energised solenoidal inductor and say that they both exhibit two poles (under steady-state conditions), one at each end of the structure
we say that a compass brought near either magnet or steady-state inductor (aka electro-magnet) will point either towards or away from the 'poles' of the structure
however, we also know if we unwind the inductor (whilst still energised) then the magnetic field lines now all circle the wire with the same spin direction - either clockwise or anticlockwise viewing the wire end-on, dependent on the current direction through the wire
we've removed the condition which supposedly provided two magnetic 'poles' - does this mean that our compass no longer 'knows' where to point?
No - because a compass doesn't point towards or away from a 'pole' - it aligns with the spin direction of the magnetic field
now the compass will align with the tangent of the magnetic field lines circulating the energised wire
reverse the current and the compass turns and points the opposite way, following a reversed circle around the wire
so, the nearest we get to a physical, macro, 'magnetic monopole' is a single, straight, energised conductor
what we do, when we start to coil an energised conductor is to cause all the magnetic field lines to enter (like a torus) at one side of the coil and they will all exit (like a torus) at the other side of the coil
our compass isn't 'pointing at a pole' - instead it's just aligning with the field direction - at one end all the circulating field lines are directed into the coil/ magnet structure - at the other end all the field lines are directed away from the structure
we can't place our compass inside a physical magnet, but if we placed it inside our inductor, would it still point to the 'North pole'? No, it would point to the other end now, because it just continues to align with the spin/ field direction
does the magnetic behaviour of a solenoidal coil tell us anything about the solid physical magnet?
well, the nearest atomic equivalent to current flow through a conductor would be the orbital movement of the mobile charge carriers (ie. electrons)
an electron orbit would be like a single coil of our energised inductor, so we could expect that our atom would exhibit a torus of magnetic field lines, all entering at one 'side'. perpendicular to the electron orbit - and all exiting at the opposide 'side'
by aligning the spin direction of the mobile charge carrier orbits, we 're effectively packing a huge number of single-turn inductors next to each other (in three dimensions) so that their magnetic field lines all flow through the solid object as if it were one 'solenoidal' inductor
there are still no 'poles' within, or at the ends of, the physical magnet - just convergence and divergence of magnetic field lines
let me just say that i'm not suggesting this negates Rosemary's thesis - i feel it just helps us to get a better understanding of magnetic behaviour than our old idea which led us down a dead-end street with the concept of magnetic 'poles'
apologies, this post has become a 'bit of a book' - i'll go back to sleep now! :)
all the best
sandy
Not only the single, straight, energised conductor :)
I have several bars at home that act like monopoles.
When north is at the left and i turn it 180 degree north is still at the left.
This is because it is influenced by the earths magnetic field.
The field lines of the earths magnetic field are dominant in this material, and that decides which end is north, so no mater how or where you point the bar it always has the same pole configuration.
Hi Sandy,
I wonder if what you're calling a 'monopole' isn't perhaps just a 'single direction'. Imagine an orbit - first clockwise - then anticlockwise - and, effectively, you've got a closed loop in both instances, but moving in opposing directions in space.
Now. Take your toroidal field in the mind's eye, from an inductive or somesuch coil - following Faraday's lines of force. And then let's assume that the torus is constructed such that the fields move through the centre of the coil and exit the open ends, say from south to north and then circle the structure on the outside - from north to south. But they're all moving in one direction. One justification. If so, then effectively the inner orbit from the south to the north - through the centre of that torus structure is consistent with the justification of the outer orbit. And there's absolutely NO differentiation between the south and the north in those magnetic field lines.
But the thing is that it's the material of the winding which experiences the difference. The material on the inside of the torus only experiences a justification from south to north. The material on the outside of the torus only experiences a justification from the north to the south. Effectively it's the material properties in the inductor/conductor - whatever, that is responding to a SINGLE justification.
Therefore it's the winding itself that has created a shield that holds the two halves of the magnetic lines of force apart. They now appear to orbit in opposition. And it's that apparent 'opposition' that is the source of the voltage imbalance - is my opinion. In other words it is the material magnetic field induced from the the winding itself that now responds to an apparent monopolar magnetic field - a half orbit - from the magnetic lines of force. As I see it - this apparent break in the lines of force is equivalent to a voltage imbalance - a broken symmetry - a half orbit from the magnetic field. And this results in a spatial adjustment of the atoms inside that coil. And that adjustment is our source of energy - be it current flow - or, on a broader macrocosmic level - gravity. It's the same thing - the same spatial adjustment.
Regards,
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
i think we're describing the same characteristics from different PoVs
my main point is that we 'muddy the waters' for ourselves by describing a magnet/ solenoid/ inductor, etc, as having two poles when it has none
we then all go off down a 'no-exit' road discussing the possibility of a creating a single-poled object (magnetic monopole) when we didn't have two poles to start with
we know that around a single straight wire, carrying DC current, the magnetic field will circle the wire (no regular N or S 'pole' here) and it'll be CW or CCW depending on current flow direction
if we now loop that (still energised) wire into a single turn we have a very short solenoid/ inductor
the previously circulating magnetic field is now folded into a 'torus' following the loop - no discontinuities or reversals of fields anywhere
if the the field is directed 'up' outside a (horizontal) loop then the field will be directed 'down' inside the loop
our compass will 'appear' to show that the top of the loop is, say, North, and the underneath of the loop is 'South'
my point is that there is no 'North' pole at the top of the loop (or magnet, or multi-turn solenoid/inductor, etc) - nor is there one anywhere else
if we continue moving the compass through the loop it doesn't reverse, in the centre, to point back at the supposed 'North' pole it just 'passed' - it continues to point along the tangent to the circulating magnetic field (North-pointing end down, say, and South-pointing end up)
so, as the compass moves on, and just leaves the centre of the loop - and is just past where we 'say' the 'South' pole is - the 'South pointing' end of the compass is still directed back along the way from which it's just travelled (as it was when it approached the top of the loop)
standard convention now says that the compass is directed at the 'South pole' of the single loop solenoid - but we've just seen that nothing has changed, the compass is still directed according to the same direction of the field through the centre of its own 'torus' envelope
there IS a difference between the top of the loop and the underneath - and it is nothing to do with 'poles' - the difference is *only* that the field lines at the top of the 'torus' are, say CONverging into the loop, and the field lines at the bottom of the 'torus' are DIverging out of the loop
standard convention would describe the bringing togther of two magnets/ solenoids, 'N pole' to 'N pole' to say that the two 'poles' repel each other and oppose the attempted joining together
but we've just found from our experiment, travelling through the 'torus' of field lines, that there are no 'poles'
in the situation just mentioned, we have two field 'tori' (sp?) with opposite field direction (so, either both diverging, or both converging) - there is no way of reconciling the opposite field directions into a single field
the fields may compress but they don't coalesce into a single field - the two sets of magnet/ solenoid/ etc fields physically resist any attempts to join the two
however. if we now present two field 'tori' where the underneath of the top field torus is , say, diverging and the top of the lower field 'torus' is converging, then the two fields are already aligned and they can join to form a longer field path around the two magnets/ solenoids, etc
if fact, there is a positive attraction between the two fields to join in such a way and we experience a physical 'pull' or attraction forcing the two together
magnets attract physically, not because they present unlike 'poles' to each other, but because their two separate fields can merge into one field - and the nature of the field is that for 'some reason' it attempts to reduce its own path length to the minimum possible distance
i think this is where the RA thesis of 'Zipon strings' seeks to describe a possible underlying 'mechanism' at the micro level which would explain fundamental behaviour/ characteristics/ forces which we observe when we're dealing with the magnetic phenomena - ie., to explain the 'some reason' i just mentioned above
woohoo - my meds are definitely wearing off - i need a drink with my old pal, Maxwell's Demon!
ciao bella
sandy
Sandy - hi again. I think you're right. I think that the justification - or as you describe it - the diverging/converging lines determine the justification of the field. It only determines the 'direction of the orbiting fields rather than creating a north or a south. But here's the thing. Imagine that the lines of force comprise magnetic dipoles and literally put a north diverging field against another north diverging and - if there ARE particles there then they're only obeying the laws of charge. They're repelling each other at 180 degrees - or a straight line. The only thing missing in this picture is that particle. And if it's only missing because it's too fast and too small to be detected - then maybe there is such a particle?
What's actually contrary to classical thinking is that particles could make a field. But again one doesn't need more than Faraday's lines of force and those magnetic dipoles and it's reasonably logical to develop a field from that. It's not as if they're 'like charges' - which then may be argued in terms of Pauli's exclusion principle. If they're intrisically bipolar - then a field structure is a logical consequence. Magnets join up. Why not magnetic particles?
Anyway. I agree. We're not arguing. ;D
Regards,
Rosemary
When two magnets are placed in close proximity to each other, they will try to find an equilibrium by aligning their fields to point in the same direction. Rotating one magnet on it's magnetic axis, does not change the direction of their fields, thus there will be no force on the other magnet to cause it to rotate also.
Scotty's test at the beginning of this thread does not prove the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating. Scotty's test shows the magnets are in equilibrium with each other by having their fields pointing in the same direction. Harvey's test with the computer monitor, also shows the direction of the magnet's field does not change when the magnet is rotated. If the direction of the field changed, then there would have been a corresponding change detected on the computer monitor.
If I give you a rope to hold in your hands, and I pull on the rope, then you will experience a force and will be attracted to me. If I rotate myself while you're holding the rope and the tension of the rope remains the same, will you rotate also? Of course not, because you won't experience any force.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 04, 2010, 02:24:54 PM
When two magnets are placed in close proximity to each other, they will try to find an equilibrium by aligning their fields to point in the same direction. Rotating one magnet on it's magnetic axis, does not change the direction of their fields, thus there will be no force on the other magnet to cause it to rotate also.
Agreed.
Quote from: gravityblock on September 04, 2010, 02:24:54 PMScotty's test at the beginning of this thread does not prove the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating. Scotty's test shows the magnets are in equilibrium with each other by having their fields pointing in the same direction.
Not sure that this is right. He doesn't actually say which direction the magnet is pointing. Frankly I think it's immaterial. They could be opposing or not. It would not change the effect.
Quote from: gravityblock on September 04, 2010, 02:24:54 PMHarvey's test with the computer monitor, also shows the direction of the magnet's field does not change when the magnet is rotated. If the direction of the field changed, then there would have been a corresponding change detected on the computer monitor.
Agreed. But the 'paradox' is begged when one assumes that the field will rotate with the magnet. If the magnetic field is the consequence of an electromagnetic interaction as we're taught, - then one would expect there to be some variation to the lines of force as the field is rotated at 90 degrees to the magnetic field. We're taught that it's a magnetic field - changing in time - that induces and electric field. And an electric field changing in time induces a magnetic field. Where is there any evidence of an electric field and a consequent changing magnetic field? What we're actually seeing is a magnetic field standing 'still' and a magnet moving at 90 degrees to that field. And it's not effecting the magnetic lines of force at all. Unless we ignore the laws of induction and decide that magnetic field can manifest without an applied electric field. Then that's fine. It's just not classical. Classical assumption requires a continual electromagnetic interaction even in permanent magnets.
I've actually asked a certain Professor Lyndsay this exact question. He assured me that there was some electric interaction within the material itself that produced the magnetic field. I argued that a permanent magnet defies this assumption. I still claim it.
Quote from: gravityblock on September 04, 2010, 02:24:54 PMIf I give you a rope to hold in your hands, and I pull on the rope, then you will experience a force and will be attracted to me. If I rotate myself while you're holding the rope and the tension of the rope remains the same, will you rotate also? Of course not, because you won't experience any force.
That might work with rope because it's got a torque from the way it's constructed. But if I was holding the end of a pipe and you were rotating that pipe then I'd definitely feel that force.
Rosemary
What I'm trying to point to is that one can have a magnet on magnet interaction and that interaction is energetic - but it does NOT result in an induced electric field. And I think this 'faraday's paradox' is precisely the evidence that the field exists independently of the material of the magnet itself. It's 'extraneous' to the magnet - but it also belongs to the magnet.
I'll be releasing a video soon that will put an end to this debate. I will show the magnetic field does indeed rotate with the magnet. This experiment will also show the magnetic fields are constantly disconnecting due to tension of the magnetic field lines. A tension can only develop between the rotating magnet and stationary magnet if the field of the rotating magnet is also rotating. It is this disconnecting of the field lines that keeps the stationary magnet from rotating. The field lines will disconnect due to tension before it has enough force to overcome the mass of the stationary magnet to cause it to rotate. If both magnets are rotated at the same rate, then the magnetic fields of both magnets will stay connected and rotate with both magnets.
The attraction force between two magnets is reduced when one magnet is stationary while the other is rotating. This is due to the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting due to tension developed between the rotating field and the stationary field. When I can measure the difference in the force between the magnets, then I'll release a video showing this.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 04, 2010, 11:41:44 PM
I'll be releasing a video soon that will put an end to this debate. I will show the magnetic field does indeed rotate with the magnet. This experiment will also show the magnetic fields are constantly disconnecting due to tension of the magnetic field lines. A tension can only develop between the rotating magnet and stationary magnet if the field of the rotating magnet is also rotating. It is this disconnecting of the field lines that keeps the stationary magnet from rotating. The field lines will disconnect due to tension before it has enough force to overcome the mass of the stationary magnet to cause it to rotate. If both magnets are rotated at the same rate, then the magnetic fields of both magnets will stay connected and rotate with both magnets.
The attraction force between two magnets is reduced when one magnet is stationary while the other is rotating. This is due to the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting due to tension developed between the rotating field and the stationary field. When I can measure the difference in the force between the magnets, then I'll release a video showing this.
GB
Frankly if you can prove that a rotating magnet also rotates its magnetic flux or field lines - then this will definitively resolve the Faraday paradox. But the interaction of flux lines is a given. They are subject to vagaries of proximation and they will default to their quantum 'best' rest state. But what's required to prove this is that the rotational axis is stable and at 90 degrees to the lines of force. And I'm not sure you need to 'measure' the force provided only that you use two magnets of the same weight, material type, and shape. But evidence of a random connect/disconnect between flux in an interference pattern - won't cut it as proof, as this could be associated with sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during that spin. Also. I wonder if it would be better to keep the magnet away from the actual drill bit as the drill itself is inductive. Perhaps one needs to spin the magnet on some kind of non inductive axis some distance from a motor.
Very interesting GB.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 02:52:07 AM
Frankly if you can prove that a rotating magnet also rotates its magnetic flux or field lines - then this will definitively resolve the Faraday paradox. But the interaction of flux lines is a given. They are subject to vagaries of proximation and they will default to their quantum 'best' rest state. But what's required to prove this is that the rotational axis is stable and at 90 degrees to the lines of force. And I'm not sure you need to 'measure' the force provided only that you use two magnets of the same weight, material type, and shape. But evidence of a random connect/disconnect between flux in an interference pattern - won't cut it as proof, as this could be associated with sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during that spin. Also. I wonder if it would be better to keep the magnet away from the actual drill bit as the drill itself is inductive. Perhaps one needs to spin the magnet on some kind of non inductive axis some distance from a motor.
Very interesting GB.
Regards,
Rosemary
When there are more field lines connected, then the magnetic attraction between the two will be stronger (I think you will agree with this). Fewer lines connected means it will have a weaker force. The experiment will show that a rotating magnet and a stationary magnet will have less attraction, than if both were stationary. I will place the stationary magnet above the rotating magnet at a distance and with enough tension by using a spring, where it doesn't fall towards the rotating magnet at a high RPM. At a much lower RPM, then the stationary magnet will fall towards the slow rotating magnet due to an increase in attraction overcoming the tension. The rotating magnet will be spun by hand.
I think the sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during the spin will be negligible and can be easily disputed with another similar experiment I have already done. I guess I'll be making two videos now, lol. My hand experiments thus far confirms what I have been saying, unless my mind and hand are playing tricks on me, and this is always a possibility. This is the reason why I want to measure this before I release a video.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 05, 2010, 03:26:07 AM
When there are more field lines connected, then the magnetic attraction between the two will be stronger (I think you will agree with this). Fewer lines connected means it will have a weaker force. The experiment will show that a rotating magnet and a stationary magnet will have less attraction, than if both were stationary. I will place the stationary magnet above the rotating magnet at a distance and with enough tension by using a spring, where it doesn't fall towards the rotating magnet at a high RPM. At a much lower RPM, then the stationary magnet will fall towards the slow rotating magnet due to an increase in attraction overcoming the tension. The rotating magnet will be spun by hand.
I think the sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during the spin will be negligible and can be easily disputed with another similar experiment I have already done. I guess I'll be making two videos now, lol. My hand experiments thus far confirms what I have been saying, unless my mind and hand are playing tricks on me, and this is always a possibility. This is the reason why I want to measure this before I release a video.
GB
I think I get it. That's a clever build. The two magnets attract - the spring extends - the flux lines merge - you twist the magnet on the spring - the flux lines break - the spring relaxes. Perhaps you need a plastic spring or you'll be introducing a variable. Provided only that the magnet's position on its axis is invariable - then I would be inclined to agree. It would mean that the flux IS moving in relation to the spin of the magnet. My only concern is that you actually don't need the spring at all. Rather position the magnets that the flux merges fully. Then twist either one or the other magnet. If there's a break in the flux then your argument is proved. And you don't complicate the test with positional variations in the magnet. Just a thought.
I'd be really interested to see both experiments. I think we all would. Well done GB. That's a really clever experiment.
Regards,
Rosemary
Added. btw. I think the complication in your experiment with the use of a spring is that it could be argued that the spring itself is overcoming the force of attraction between the magnets. But it would be hard to argue this if the the spring was separated from the magnet itself. Somehow hung in series -----rod - spring - bearing - rod - magnet .... something like that? Not sure if you're up to such niceties - or even if they're strictly required. ;D
maybe just two magnets with holes in center levitating on a plastic or wood rod in repelling action, then spin the lower one and observe if distance between them is changed
Quote from: forest on September 06, 2010, 01:07:32 AM
maybe just two magnets with holes in center levitating on a plastic or wood rod in repelling action, then spin the lower one and observe if distance between them is changed
forest, that's PERFECT. How about it GB? Frankly whatever GB does here will be of really great interest as they'll all expand our knowledge of this. And I must admit that I, like him, am intrigued with what actually causes the lines to break? My assumption has always been that when they're positioned to attract there's a complete and immediate correspondence of all that flux. It appears I'm wrong here. It's possibly graduated and increases over time - exponentially? - possibly? Fascinating stuff.
And in this latter example then I think GB will be showing us much more about the forces related to a potential frictionless bearing. That's got to be usable.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
@All:
My experiments did not measure any difference in attraction force if the magnet was rotating or stationary. It appears my hand or mind was playing tricks on me. I did notice something interesting though, which everyone here can try. Suspend a magnet from a few strands of nylon fiber above another magnet. Gently try to rotate the suspended magnet until it moves. By doing this, you will notice there is a slight resistance, then it will move freely until it encounters another point where there is resistance. The suspended magnet can then move freely without any noticeable resistance between these two points.
In order to replicate this experiment, lay a few strands of nylon fiber across the center of a magnet, then place another magnet on top, so the nylon fibers are sandwiched between the two magnets. After doing this, then suspend these magnets by both ends of the nylon fiber with equal tension on both ends of the fibers. Once the magnet is suspended above the stationary magnet, then check for any points which may have a resistance. It is best to have the suspended magnet really close to the stationary magnet. Also, don't try to rotate the magnet itself, but gently move the magnet by pushing on the fibers.
I suspect the resistance I am feeling is tension in the field lines, and the areas where the suspended magnet can move freely, has no noticeable tension in the field lines. When the tension or resistance becomes too great, then the field lines of both magnets may disconnect, then reconnect to another field line in order to rid itself of this tension. This small amount of tension is not enough to overcome the mass of the magnets in order to cause it to rotate.
I need to do more experiments to verify this and to find other possible explanations.
GB
Quote from: forest on September 06, 2010, 01:07:32 AM
maybe just two magnets with holes in center levitating on a plastic or wood rod in repelling action, then spin the lower one and observe if distance between them is changed
This is a much better test than the attraction experiment I've been working on. I'll do this repulsive test even though my previous experiment didn't detect any difference in attraction when rotating or stationary........but the spring with the attraction test may have had a negative effect. Your idea gets rid of the spring. Excellent idea. Thank You.
GB
Magnetic currents - REPEL is a separate force internal to the magnet. Google 'd orbital' this is the flow picture. All of the pictures of magnet force is iron base; yet has effect on copper - where is the copper picture? I will be bold - yes I can see inside of magnet!
Quote from: gravityblock on September 06, 2010, 05:23:37 AM
@All:
My experiments did not measure any difference in attraction force if the magnet was rotating or stationary. It appears my hand or mind was playing tricks on me. I did notice something interesting though, which everyone here can try. Suspend a magnet from a few strands of nylon fiber above another magnet. Gently try to rotate the suspended magnet until it moves. By doing this, you will notice there is a slight resistance, then it will move freely until it encounters another point where there is resistance. The suspended magnet can then move freely without any noticeable resistance between these two points.
In order to replicate this experiment, lay a few strands of nylon fiber across the center of a magnet, then place another magnet on top, so the nylon fibers are sandwiched between the two magnets. After doing this, then suspend these magnets by both ends of the nylon fiber with equal tension on both ends of the fibers. Once the magnet is suspended above the stationary magnet, then check for any points which may have a resistance. It is best to have the suspended magnet really close to the stationary magnet. Also, don't try to rotate the magnet itself, but gently move the magnet by pushing on the fibers.
I suspect the resistance I am feeling is tension in the field lines, and the areas where the suspended magnet can move freely, has no noticeable tension in the field lines. When the tension or resistance becomes too great, then the field lines of both magnets may disconnect, then reconnect to another field line in order to rid itself of this tension. This small amount of tension is not enough to overcome the mass of the magnets in order to cause it to rotate.
I need to do more experiments to verify this and to find other possible explanations.
GB
Hi GB. I tried that suspended magnet number. You're right about those points where the tension is evident. Well done for doing those experiments. At least we know. And I agree - it'll be interesting to see the results on opposing fields.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
There is a device that uses a permanent magnet and an armature and a spring to operate a water solenoid. It is called a hydrominder. The permanent magnet assembly is held down by the weight of the float in the tank to be filled against the force of a spring. In the center of the permanent magnet is a hole which allows it to be placed over a brass or plastic tube. Inside the tube is the solenoid plunger made of stainless steel. The pm moves up the column slowly while the plunger stays seated. At a predetermined distance the plunger suddenly leaves the seat from a fully closed position to a fully open position. Often associated with a click from over shooting the pm. The same is true when the pm moves down the tube. The plunger stays put until all of a sudden it seats. The pm assembly appears to be two pms glued together. The glue resists the motion of the two pms from moving apart. This resistance is quite unnatural. What appears to happen is that we have the lines of force squeezed out enough to polarize the steel at 90 degrees relative to the motion of the polarizing unit. The domains in the steel record the motion of the unit. Something like a tape recorder but you move the head instead of the tape. The motion of the pm does not move the plunger immediately because its motion is perpendicular to the polarization of the steel. When the angle of the squeezed out field becomes relative enough to the recorded motion inside the plunger magnetic field. Blam she moves like a rocket. Thats what is so great about a magnetic field. We can store boat loads of motion in it then return and extract boat loads of motion from it when needed.
This is what drives a tuned circuit into seeming overunity. The input of say one watt second soon accumulates into a vast amount of energy in the tuned circuit. One watt second stored and then released in a millisecond gives you a 1000 watt energetic process. It is not overunity it is energy storage. I will try to quote as best I can a poster on this forum called Grumpy. "It takes tremendous amounts of energy to create time" Unfortunately there are many that cant see the value in expending a watt for a second to create a kilowatt output for a millisecond. Watts measure power. Watt seconds measure work. It is impossible to do more work than the work done. There will never be an overunity machine. There are and will be many energy collection machines. The surplus energy comes from time.
Quote from: sparks on September 06, 2010, 04:03:04 PM
There is a device that uses a permanent magnet and an armature and a spring to operate a water solenoid. It is called a hydrominder. The permanent magnet assembly is held down by the weight of the float in the tank to be filled against the force of a spring. In the center of the permanent magnet is a hole which allows it to be placed over a brass or plastic tube. Inside the tube is the solenoid plunger made of stainless steel. The pm moves up the column slowly while the plunger stays seated. At a predetermined distance the plunger suddenly leaves the seat from a fully closed position to a fully open position. Often associated with a click from over shooting the pm. The same is true when the pm moves down the tube. The plunger stays put until all of a sudden it seats. The pm assembly appears to be two pms glued together. The glue resists the motion of the two pms from moving apart. This resistance is quite unnatural. What appears to happen is that we have the lines of force squeezed out enough to polarize the steel at 90 degrees relative to the motion of the polarizing unit. The domains in the steel record the motion of the unit. Something like a tape recorder but you move the head instead of the tape. The motion of the pm does not move the plunger immediately because its motion is perpendicular to the polarization of the steel. When the angle of the squeezed out field becomes relative enough to the recorded motion inside the plunger magnetic field. Blam she moves like a rocket. Thats what is so great about a magnetic field. We can store boat loads of motion in it then return and extract boat loads of motion from it when needed.
This is what drives a tuned circuit into seeming overunity. The input of say one watt second soon accumulates into a vast amount of energy in the tuned circuit. One watt second stored and then released in a millisecond gives you a 1000 watt energetic process. It is not overunity it is energy storage. I will try to quote as best I can a poster on this forum called Grumpy. "It takes tremendous amounts of energy to create time" Unfortunately there are many that cant see the value in expending a watt for a second to create a kilowatt output for a millisecond. Watts measure power. Watt seconds measure work. It is impossible to do more work than the work done. There will never be an overunity machine. There are and will be many energy collection machines. The surplus energy comes from time.
Sparky - I copied the whole thing. Your language is just so perfect. Grumpy moved over to OUR.com where he conducts really long, rather involved duologues with MileHigh. Miss them both.
What the guys are discussing here is Faraday's paradox - but if they'll tolerate a bit of a departure from this - here's my take. There is no question that magnets can store and then deliver energy. I've seen this happening on the most subtle levels. Like GB I've been hanging permanent magnets over - under - beside others in ever more complex arrangements and every time they 'come to rest'. And I've been doing this obsessively for about 10 years. They seem to elicit movements that can be described as a 'jitter', a 'bounce', a spin, a movement towards, a movement away - and all combinations of this. Entirely engrossing.
Back on topic. The proposal is that magnetic field lines may be some force that is also somehow separated from the material or atomic structure of the magnet. It's still orbiting the permanent magnet - but it's detached. If so, then this would explain why its lines of force do not appear to move when one twists the magnet on a 90 degree axis. We know that the atoms that make up the body of the magnet have NOT been materially altered. To the best of our knowledge they have not gained or lost electrons. Their nucleus is still in tact. So. The question then may be 'where did that flux come from?'.
My own proposal is that flux itself has a material composition and it actually comes from its previous 'housing' or 'abode' as it attached atoms in the material of the magnet structure itself. In other words, some more diffused type of magnetic fields are possibly responsible for the bound condition of atoms. Therefore what has altered in the structure of a permanent magnet is the 'bound' condition of the atoms in that magnet. And what is released is a field of these 'binding particles' that simply circle or orbit the magnet. Never quite free but never quite attached - so to speak. So. If these fields are responsible for the 'bound' state of the magnet then they may be responsible for the bound condition of ALL identifiable materials? If so, then they would also be there - binding copper to copper in copper wire, and iron to iron in iron wire - and so on. What I'm proposing is that the transfer of all energy is actually the transfer of these fields - through space and in time - that then change the bound condition of all three dimensional bound structures either temporarily - as in a rechargable battery - or permanently - as in a short in a resistor wire. Effectively all material is a potential energy source - and inductive material is potentially an electromagnetic energy source. It does indeed have stored magnetic energy. But that energy is only indirectly related to the atomic mass and structure. It's extraneous to the atom yet it relates to the atoms that it binds.
I wonder if that's clear? Probably not. But you see then? If so, then we've omitted that half of the equation from our measurements. If the material is able to become a supply source rather than a repository of stored energy - then one would need to exceed the amount of energy delivered from the supply.
So. Back to your point and again a little off topic. You say that it is impossible to generate more energy than delivered. Resonance may certainly enable multiple exchanges of energy between the supply and the work station, so to speak. But if the work station is also SUPPLYING energy - in the form of these released binding fields - then one would actually NEED to exceed COP 1. We've actually proved this. But resonating circuits are difficult to measure and rely on really sophisticated measuring instruments. Then there's an impossibly complex sum to determine the varying resistive values as the voltages change. So. To establish the point what we did was measure the heat dissipated at the work station. That's an empirical measurement. And then we measured the voltage across non-inductive shunts to establish the amount of energy delivered. That's also an empirical measurement. And what we found - repeatedly is that the energy delivered is less than the energy dissipated. This could NOT happen unless there was another supply source to supplement the energy first delivered.
So Sparky. I applaud your clarity of expression. I'm not able to equal it. But this is why I propose that your conclusion may be wrong. ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Faraday disc not inconsistent with the theory of relativity, Newton's third law and the theory of electromagnetism-related.
see here:http://akunkeji.blog.163.com/blog/static/9142170820102206448499/ (http://akunkeji.blog.163.com/blog/static/9142170820102206448499/)
Quote from: akunkeji on September 07, 2010, 01:00:47 AM
Faraday disc not inconsistent with the theory of relativity, Newton's third law and the theory of electromagnetism-related.
see here:http://akunkeji.blog.163.com/blog/static/9142170820102206448499/ (http://akunkeji.blog.163.com/blog/static/9142170820102206448499/)
Hello akunkeji and welcome to the discussion. I wonder if I could impose on you to give us an english version of your blog. I would be most interested.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Ok, I will be publishing papers in the free time to explain the Faraday paradox.
"Faraday paradox phenomenon" is entirely reasonable, and there is no contradiction.
Eventually we will reach this conclusion: Faraday disc not inconsistent the theory of relativity/Newton's third law/theory of electromagnetism-related...
So, should not put too much energy to study it. It does not give us an extra surprise.
Quote from: akunkeji on September 07, 2010, 02:12:47 AM
Ok, I will be publishing papers in the free time to explain the Faraday paradox.
"Faraday paradox phenomenon" is entirely reasonable, and there is no contradiction.
Eventually we will reach this conclusion: Faraday disc not inconsistent the theory of relativity/Newton's third law/theory of electromagnetism-related...
So, should not put too much energy to study it. It does not give us an extra surprise.
Thanks akunkeji. Be delighted to see your paper. I'm not sure that any of us think that Faraday's paradox is proof of extra energy though. I think what's discussed here is how to resolve the paradox. The 'surprises', as you refer to it, are only my own eccentric deductions. LOL. I'd be sorry if this gives the general impression that these ideas are shared. The members here are rather more sane and sensible. ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tesla said that magnetic fields (and their associated "lines of force") are only the aether responding to charges in motion. I imagine that this is a reversible process, which explains why a generator does what it does-- (a permanent magnet, having billions and billions of revolving charges internal to it's structure, causes the aether to respond by creating magnetic lines of force-- now by moving the magnet so that the aetheric lines of force cut across a conductor, charges in the conductor will be placed under stress creating a voltage gradient, and if the circuit is completed, a current will ensue-- thus causing a counter magnetic field to form around the conductor-- thus completing the cycle).
Dr. Harold Aspden discovered the "Aspden Effect", where the aether can be "dragged around" with a spinning bar magnet (rotating perpendicular to the B-axis). Dr. Aspden's experiments were done with a mechanical apparatus, which is limited in the number of RPM's that it can safely sustain. I wonder what would happen, if one were to build a device with an electronically rotating magnetic field (similar to Tesla's patent 381,970-- but with just the 3-phase primary windings-- no secondaries.) This could be built on a modern ferrite toroid, of a relatively low permeability material designed for relatively low-loss use at multi-megahertz frequencies. A one-layer winding using large Litz wire or copper strap would be the best conductor types to use. Then (with a 6-MOSFET 3-phase circuit) drive the field around at 1 to 2 million revolutions per second (equivalent to 60 to 120 million RPM's). I am betting that there would be some anomalous effects. If you built a second toroid unit, and positioned it just above the first toroid unit, then connect the second toroid unit to the 3-phase driver (except swap two of the leads), you would then have another rotating field that would be turning in the opposite direction-- which may produce a "pinch effect" in the center, just between the 2 toroids. Probably, you would at least see the air in this pinch-point becoming luminous, but there may be other interesting effects as well-- (maybe dangerous radiation, so be careful). It is possible that you may notice some weight change of the single-toroid device, and an alteration of local time at the pinch-point of a 2-toroid counter-rotating field device-- (place the crystal of an operating oscillator into the "pinch-point", and record any change in output frequency of the oscillator).
These experiments might be very interesting to try...
Quote from: KWP on September 07, 2010, 03:40:55 AM
Tesla said that magnetic fields (and their associated "lines of force") are only the aether responding to charges in motion. I imagine that this is a reversible process, which explains why a generator does what it does-- (a permanent magnet, having billions and billions of revolving charges internal to it's structure, causes the aether to respond by creating magnetic lines of force-- now by moving the magnet so that the aetheric lines of force cut across a conductor, charges in the conductor will be placed under stress creating a voltage gradient, and if the circuit is completed, a current will ensue-- thus causing a counter magnetic field to form around the conductor-- thus completing the cycle).
Dr. Harold Aspden discovered the "Aspden Effect", where the aether can be "dragged around" with a spinning bar magnet (rotating perpendicular to the B-axis). Dr. Aspden's experiments were done with a mechanical apparatus, which is limited in the number of RPM's that it can safely sustain. I wonder what would happen, if one were to build a device with an electronically rotating magnetic field (similar to Tesla's patent 381,970-- but with just the 3-phase primary windings-- no secondaries.) This could be built on a modern ferrite toroid, of a relatively low permeability material designed for relatively low-loss use at multi-megahertz frequencies. A one-layer winding using large Litz wire or copper strap would be the best conductor types to use. Then (with a 6-MOSFET 3-phase circuit) drive the field around at 1 to 2 million revolutions per second (equivalent to 60 to 120 million RPM's). I am betting that there would be some anomalous effects. If you built a second toroid unit, and positioned it just above the first toroid unit, then connect the second toroid unit to the 3-phase driver (except swap two of the leads), you would then have another rotating field that would be turning in the opposite direction-- which may produce a "pinch effect" in the center, just between the 2 toroids. Probably, you would at least see the air in this pinch-point becoming luminous, but there may be other interesting effects as well-- (maybe dangerous radiation, so be careful). It is possible that you may notice some weight change of the single-toroid device, and an alteration of local time at the pinch-point of a 2-toroid counter-rotating field device-- (place the crystal of an operating oscillator into the "pinch-point", and record any change in output frequency of the oscillator).
These experiments might be very interesting to try...
1 to 2 MHz from MOSFETs. That's a little beyond amateur experimenters. Are you going to liquid-cool them?
Tesla's motor is wound so that the field is toroidal. What is going to "pinch"? Marinov's MAGVID produced a luminuous beam out of the center, but it was rotating at around 30MHz.
So how would you induce electricity from this arrangement?
Wasting your time on this thread. The Ainslie Crew has arrived to trash anything that doesn't mention "zipons".
sigma 16
quote:
Wasting your time on this thread. The Ainslie Crew has arrived to trash anything that doesn't mention "zipons".
---------------------
When did you become a "Girly Man"[spoken like a california governor}?
?
Chet
Quote from: sigma16 on September 07, 2010, 03:40:50 PM
1 to 2 MHz from MOSFETs. That's a little beyond amateur experimenters. Are you going to liquid-cool them?
Tesla's motor is wound so that the field is toroidal. What is going to "pinch"? Marinov's MAGVID produced a luminuous beam out of the center, but it was rotating at around 30MHz.
So how would you induce electricity from this arrangement?
Advanced Power Technology makes some MOSFETs that are specifically designed to run at multi-megahertz frequencies. They would require careful layout, active cooling, and powerful gate drive IC's (with one independent 14A gate drive IC per MOSFET). To keep the current in the toroidal windings constant while the frequency is being changed, the bus voltage for the MOSFETS will have to be linearly related to the frequency-- this can be done manually or with further circuitry to automate the change in voltage.
The device will "spin" the aether in the immediate vicinity of the toroid. With one toroid above the other (each spinning the aether in opposite directions), the 2 aether vortexes will be drawn together-- but because they are spinning in opposite directions, there will be a tendency for the 2 vortexes to form kind of a mini-tornado like structure in the center-- just between the 2 toroids. This is where the aether will experience a "pinch effect", and where you might expect anomalous behavior to originate from.
It is expected that all sorts of strange things will happen at this power level, and some of them might be dangerous, so be careful if you do this experiment. (It might be best to do the experiment using remote control, with the apparatus in a metal outbuilding far away from any dwelling).
This experiment is not to "induce electricity"-- but rather to study the behavior of the aether. Once we figure out all of the nuances of the aether, we can worry about extracting energy from the ZPF-- but we need to know how the aether works (and why it works that way) so that we can properly engineer the equipment. Once we understand the aether, then we can manipulate gravity, and that leads us to free energy.
there is no need to understand these things before using them to shape the physical universe. ancient metal workers had no need to understand the molecular and submolecular complexities of their steel, bronze, copper, gold, and tin... they invented mystical powers to describe the unknown while they continued to operate their forges and wield their hammers.
Quote from: KWP on September 08, 2010, 02:40:01 AM
Advanced Power Technology makes some MOSFETs that are specifically designed to run at multi-megahertz frequencies. They would require careful layout, active cooling, and powerful gate drive IC's (with one independent 14A gate drive IC per MOSFET). To keep the current in the toroidal windings constant while the frequency is being changed, the bus voltage for the MOSFETS will have to be linearly related to the frequency-- this can be done manually or with further circuitry to automate the change in voltage.
The device will "spin" the aether in the immediate vicinity of the toroid. With one toroid above the other (each spinning the aether in opposite directions), the 2 aether vortexes will be drawn together-- but because they are spinning in opposite directions, there will be a tendency for the 2 vortexes to form kind of a mini-tornado like structure in the center-- just between the 2 toroids. This is where the aether will experience a "pinch effect", and where you might expect anomalous behavior to originate from.
It is expected that all sorts of strange things will happen at this power level, and some of them might be dangerous, so be careful if you do this experiment. (It might be best to do the experiment using remote control, with the apparatus in a metal outbuilding far away from any dwelling).
This experiment is not to "induce electricity"-- but rather to study the behavior of the aether. Once we figure out all of the nuances of the aether, we can worry about extracting energy from the ZPF-- but we need to know how the aether works (and why it works that way) so that we can properly engineer the equipment. Once we understand the aether, then we can manipulate gravity, and that leads us to free energy.
OK, so straight out of the gate we have a slight problem. Most are amateurs here and many who are skilled are bound by non-disclosure agreements. Active cooling, careful layout, and APT MOSFETs are a little much.
The "gravity resonance coil" posted by the TVQ Group back in the 90's didn't rotate and was fairly simple except for the toroidal shell filled with glycerin. They used an external solenoid coil fed with 25kv DC modulated to produce anomolous effects. 100kv and 50kv supplies put this out of reach of many experimenters.
Spherics posted a tetrahedral device that rotated the aether at the apex of 4 coils and this induced current into a toroidal coil. Pulse fequency had to be several MHZ and high voltage pulses, precise timing, adjustment of pulse width and phase between pulses. A few started on it, but I don't think anyone ever finished.
The Hendershot Device is reported to produce an Aether Vortex, but only Hendrshot could tune it to work and as far as I know he never explained how to tune it except perhaps to the groups that he built devices for and they are not talking.
So, what is the most simplistic, crude, down and dirty easiest way to rotate the aether?Say I got high voltage, low current supplies available and lots of wire to work with. I know that a very fast pulse into a very long coil compresses or rarefacts the aether (negative is compression, positive if rarefaction). This produces a field around the coil where the inductive capacity is increased nearer the coil. This may be synonymous with gravity. If I place several coils in a circle, I could pulse them sequentially but how do I dot this? I'll need a high voltage switch of some sort. Spark gaps are easy but repatition rate is very low. A DC solenoid aroung all of the coils would alter the specific inductive capacity enogh that even at low rates, the effects will be detectable.
A ring of coils, bias solenoid around them all, and a separate spark gap for each coil is a good start, but I need to set a delay for each gap to fire them sequentially or I have to build a rotary gap to do this mechanically. High speed, accurate rptary gap requires machining, so we set that aside and look at delaying each channel electrically.
If I use a reasitor to regulate the rate that a delay line charges for each channel, then the smaller values fore more than the large values, so this doesn't work in this case. Hmm. I could trigger the next gap from the previous gap, but a misfire ruins everything and triggering gets tricky. So, it kind of boils down to a passive delay for each channel of the high voltage, but what value for the delay? A few ns, a ms? Not exactly tunable, but you coul make delay elements with taps. You need somewhere to start.
Suppose I set my pulsewidth a lenght of coax. Say 5ns to keep it short. Assuming a fast rise at the gap, I'll rise to peak voltage in 1 to 3 ns. The reaction velocity of the aether is unknown to me, but I guess that it is very fast and the settling time may be slower, especially with my bias field keeping everything lined-up. So, guessing, I would make a delay line of 10x 10ns elements and taps at every one. For the last coil, this is a lot of elements even if they are easy to make. If I can't pick up the rarefacted medium with the next coil then I have to make another "guess".
Sounds a little rough but will work with enough time and effort.
If you have other ideas, I'd like to discuss them.EDIT:
Based on the delay in nS= sqrt (L x C) in pF and uH
To get a 10ns delay with a 10pF cap you need a 10uH coil. Both are small values and you could make them yourself.
EDIT 2:Keep in mind the minimum equipment required to get it all to work. Anyone here who builds anything probably has a scope with 2 channels to 100MHz, and a DMM. A capacitance/inductance meter is a luxury. A faster scope is a luxury.
They probably have a power supply that is 24vdc variable at 1 amp or less, more than that is a luxury.
High voltage supplies are easily obtainable, but they wil have to use a resistive or capacitive divider to see what is going on. HV probes are a luxury. HV resistors usually have to be ordered and are not just lying around. Same for the caps and diodes to convert an AC supply to DC.
Wire is easy to get, but if the windings are too difficult, then no one will do it. You may have to demonstrate even simple methods of making a mandrel and cranking the wire by hand.
Quote from: sigma16 on September 08, 2010, 10:38:51 AM
So, what is the most simplistic, crude, down and dirty easiest way to rotate the aether?
In order to answer this question one must understand the underlying principle of :
*what is what
*what does it do or what can it do
*when does it do that
*how does it do that
*and why does it do that
*and Etc.
Ever wondered why induction
only takes place when the fields are growing or shrinking?
Induction stops when the field is at a fixed strength no matter what voltage or current is used.
In other words, the field strength has to vary all the time.
It has been said that magnetism is a property of the aether, just as light is, so a good question would be:
Why is it incapable of transferring energy when the field strength is at a fixed strength?
Because after all that's what it does, it does not add or take energy it just transfers it from one point to another,or if you wish, temporary store it around the disturbance/polarizing generating unit.
Some will argue about field lines crossing conductors etc. however,
The answer lies in the effect that is responsible for the mechanism that will finally result in electron flow.
This effect is called a Doppler shift.
A Doppler shift can only take place when there is a variation between two or more points in space.
When things are fixed no Doppler effect is present, and when we take for example two points in space and we start to move one point closer or further away from the other, the Doppler effect shows up.
Now a Doppler effect is much like a potential difference but not exactly the same since a potential difference will cause the natural medium to respond in a way that restores equilibrium I.E energy will flow until the charge between two points is equal.
The Doppler effect on the other hand works differently, it is present when the field is stretched or compressed, but when it isn't moving it dissapears immediately.
@ sigma
you can pulse the coils sequentially, by connecting them in series, and time them with sparkgaps in between.
just my 1.5 cents
Quote from: XS-NRG on September 08, 2010, 08:24:20 PM
In order to answer this question one must understand the underlying principle of :
*what is what
*what does it do or what can it do
*when does it do that
*how does it do that
*and why does it do that
*and Etc.
Ever wondered why induction only takes place when the fields are growing or shrinking?
Induction stops when the field is at a fixed strength no matter what voltage or current is used.
In other words, the field strength has to vary all the time.
It has been said that magnetism is a property of the aether, just as light is, so a good question would be:
Why is it incapable of transferring energy when the field strength is at a fixed strength?
Because after all that's what it does, it does not add or take energy it just transfers it from one point to another,or if you wish, temporary store it around the disturbance/polarizing generating unit.
Some will argue about field lines crossing conductors etc. however,
The answer lies in the effect that is responsible for the mechanism that will finally result in electron flow.
This effect is called a Doppler shift.
A Doppler shift can only take place when there is a variation between two or more points in space.
When things are fixed no Doppler effect is present, and when we take for example two points in space and we start to move one point closer or further away from the other, the Doppler effect shows up.
Now a Doppler effect is much like a potential difference but not exactly the same since a potential difference will cause the natural medium to respond in a way that restores equilibrium I.E energy will flow until the charge between two points is equal.
The Doppler effect on the other hand works differently, it is present when the field is stretched or compressed, but when it isn't moving it dissapears immediately.
The Doppler effect is natures way of conveying relative motion between two emitters of motion. Photons or electromagnetic waves are inertia problem mitigators. They are recognized as friction between two bodies. Rub your hands together like your warming them up on a freezing cold day. They warm up. Invest the same amount of energy into swinging them around through the air at high velocity no doppler effect. When the cosmic background radiation is monitored there is a consistent doppler increase in frequency corresponding with a 300km/sec motion relative to this field . The blue shift arises whenever they swing the radio telescopes towards the constellation Leo even if leo is not line of sight. Behind the Sun or through the middle of the Earth. There is or was something really really massive and in motion that is or was altering its mass in motion parameters in that direction to create enough photons to exist almost anywhere we point a microwave telescope. Well if we know our true motion it is a start. What say we suspend some mass that no longer travels in the inertial frame of the Earth. Like free electrons in a vacuum tube. Our collector is aligned with the Earths true vector and boom the electrons collide with a collector at 300km/sec. It is slow compared to that of the speed of light but enough for some anomalous heating in our collection system.
Here's an experiment proving the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7o7Q7PraY
At the beginning of the video, I am holding the string to the top magnet. I rotated the magnet many times before the video to build up tension in the string. After I release the string,the top magnet will begin to unwind. As the top magnet is unwinding, the bottom magnet will rotate. When the tension of the string on the bottom magnet becomes too great, then it will unwind also.
As you can clearly see, rotating either magnet will cause the other magnet to also rotate. My next video will have the bottom string attached to a swivel bearing, so tension won't build up in the string and will rotate without resistance in one direction only.
For those who will find fault in my experiment, then do this very simple experiment yourself, so you can feel the forces involved.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 15, 2010, 01:29:13 AM
Here's an experiment proving the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7o7Q7PraY
At the beginning of the video, I am holding the string to the top magnet. I rotated the magnet many times before the video to build up tension in the string. After I release the string,the top magnet will begin to unwind. As the top magnet is unwinding, the bottom magnet will rotate. When the tension of the string on the bottom magnet becomes too great, then it will unwind also.
As you can clearly see, rotating either magnet will cause the other magnet to also rotate. My next video will have the bottom string attached to a swivel bearing, so tension won't build up in the string and will rotate without resistance in one direction only.
For those who will find fault in my experiment, then do this very simple experiment yourself, so you can feel the forces involved.
GB
it is strange that the magnets have a preferred start setting.
the magnets have not uniform magnetization?
Quote from: wings on September 15, 2010, 04:38:23 AM
it is strange that the magnets have a preferred start setting.
the magnets have not uniform magnetization?
The magnets do have a uniform magnetization, and both are rotating on their magnetic axis. The preferred start setting is due to the lack of tension on both strings. Do this simple experiment for yourself, and you will feel the forces involved. Don't try to find a fault in this experiment until you have replicated it. This is so easy to replicate, there is absolutely no reason for someone to try and find a fault, until they actually replicate it for themselves. Experiment, and you just may learn something.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 15, 2010, 01:29:13 AM
Here's an experiment proving the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7o7Q7PraY
At the beginning of the video, I am holding the string to the top magnet. I rotated the magnet many times before the video to build up tension in the string. After I release the string,the top magnet will begin to unwind. As the top magnet is unwinding, the bottom magnet will rotate. When the tension of the string on the bottom magnet becomes too great, then it will unwind also.
As you can clearly see, rotating either magnet will cause the other magnet to also rotate. My next video will have the bottom string attached to a swivel bearing, so tension won't build up in the string and will rotate without resistance in one direction only.
For those who will find fault in my experiment, then do this very simple experiment yourself, so you can feel the forces involved.
GB
Very interesting experiment GB. Can you try the same with one magnet and one iron piece? Will the iron piece also rotate with the magnet ?
Quote from: gravityblock on September 15, 2010, 01:29:13 AM
Here's an experiment proving the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7o7Q7PraY
At the beginning of the video, I am holding the string to the top magnet. I rotated the magnet many times before the video to build up tension in the string. After I release the string,the top magnet will begin to unwind. As the top magnet is unwinding, the bottom magnet will rotate. When the tension of the string on the bottom magnet becomes too great, then it will unwind also.
As you can clearly see, rotating either magnet will cause the other magnet to also rotate. My next video will have the bottom string attached to a swivel bearing, so tension won't build up in the string and will rotate without resistance in one direction only.
For those who will find fault in my experiment, then do this very simple experiment yourself, so you can feel the forces involved.
GB
No, the magnetic field
DOES NOT rotate with the magnet when the magnet is rotated on it's B-axis!
Your experiment is
flawed. The magnets in your video are nickel-plated rare-earth magnets. The magnets you have are either magnetized across the diameter (as opposed to magnetized through the thickness) or, (as an alternative explanation) the rotating magnet causes a counter-EMF to be set up in the surrounding nickel plating, which causes a counter-current, which (in turn) effects the other magnet. If you did this same experiment with magnets that are un-plated and non-conducting (like ceramic magnets), and those magnets are magnetized through the thickness (and not across the diameter) you would see no rotation in the other magnet.
I did the same experiment in my laboratory with uncoated ceramic disc magnets (that were magnetized through the thickness), and the magnet on the bottom DID NOT ROTATE when the top magnet was rotated.
KWP.
@all
An absolute must see!!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9749.msg257239#new
Chet
Quote from: KWP on September 15, 2010, 05:22:12 PM
No, the magnetic field DOES NOT rotate with the magnet when the magnet is rotated on it's B-axis!
Your experiment is flawed. The magnets in your video are nickel-plated rare-earth magnets. The magnets you have are either magnetized across the diameter (as opposed to magnetized through the thickness) or, (as an alternative explanation) the rotating magnet causes a counter-EMF to be set up in the surrounding nickel plating, which causes a counter-current, which (in turn) effects the other magnet. If you did this same experiment with magnets that are un-plated and non-conducting (like ceramic magnets), and those magnets are magnetized through the thickness (and not across the diameter) you would see no rotation in the other magnet.
I did the same experiment in my laboratory with uncoated ceramic disc magnets (that were magnetized through the thickness), and the magnet on the bottom DID NOT ROTATE when the top magnet was rotated.
This is the biggest insult I have ever received on this forum. The north pole is on the tails side, and the south pole is on the heads side. The magnets I have are axially magnetized and are not diametrically magnetized as you and wings supposed. I am not that stupid.
In regards to the counter emf, I did a similar experiment with the same magnets, where the bottom magnet was attached to a rotor with bearings. The top magnet was suspended by a string above the rotor magnet. When I rotate the rotor magnet, the top magnet did not rotate. This rules out the counter emf in the nickel coating and is proof that the magnetic field is firmly seated on the magnet and is not free-floating. The field lines of the top magnet will disconnect before being able to overcome the mass of the rotor and bearing frictions due to it's field being twisted. When both magnets are stationary, you can feel the tension in the field lines. Rosemary has confirmed the tension in the field lines. The magnetic field will rotate with the magnets when both magnets are able to freely rotate without much resistance in the form of weight, bearing frictions, etc. The field lines are easily broken between two magnets when they're not rotating together at the same rpm. When the magnets are rotated on their magnetic axis at different rpm's and since the fields are firmly seated on the magnet, then this will cause the field lines to twist. After the field lines are twisted so much, they will disconnect because the field lines can't cross each other.
GB
Quote from: Airstriker on September 15, 2010, 08:14:13 AM
Very interesting experiment GB. Can you try the same with one magnet and one iron piece? Will the iron piece also rotate with the magnet ?
I'll do this test.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 15, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
This is the biggest insult I have ever received on this forum.
I was simply stating what I know to be a fact. No insult was intended, but you have the right to feel insulted if you wish.
Your results vary from my results using non-coated, non-conductive ceramic magnets. Perhaps we can get additional confirmation (one way or the other) from other researchers-- using both nickel coated rare-earth magnets, and non-coated, non-conductive ceramic magnets...
Quote from: KWP on September 15, 2010, 07:36:50 PM
I was simply stating what I know to be a fact. No insult was intended, but you have the right to feel insulted if you wish.
Your results vary from my results using non-coated, non-conductive ceramic magnets. Perhaps we can get additional confirmation (one way or the other) from other researchers-- using both nickel coated rare-earth magnets, and non-coated, non-conductive ceramic magnets...
I have already ruled out the counter emf in the nickel coating. I'll redo that experiment and post the video. I have said from the very beginning for all to replicate this experiment before finding fault in it. For those interested, I used nylon fibers for the string. This allows the magnets to freely rotate with the least amount of resistance from the tension of the fibers being twisted. If the tension of your string is too great when being twisted, then you're not going to get the same results as I have.
GB
Quote from: KWP on September 15, 2010, 05:22:12 PM
I did the same experiment in my laboratory with uncoated ceramic disc magnets (that were magnetized through the thickness), and the magnet on the bottom DID NOT ROTATE when the top magnet was rotated.
I agree that the magnets should not rotate each other, and in fact a coating would make no difference. The faces need to be parallel to avoid any change in field intensity that is linking with the opposing magnet.
So in the case of no influence on the opposing magnet, which one is the field rotating with?
I must admit, I have not read the entire thread. But from what I have read it seems the focus is around understanding magnetic flux. There is an idea that has been floating around in my head for quite some time. Perhaps it may be possible for someone to create it. Essentially the design would allow a snapshot of the flux (kinda). A large plexiglass container would need to be built, a magnet would be suspended in the center. High speed cameras would be mounted at different angles around the container. Compressed air would blast a fine ferrous powder into the box, and the cameras would snap pics. Hopefully, a nice three dimensional image would result. :)
Quote from: Linearfashion on September 15, 2010, 09:16:59 PM
I must admit, I have not read the entire thread. But from what I have read it seems the focus is around understanding magnetic flux. There is an idea that has been floating around in my head for quite some time. Perhaps it may be possible for someone to create it. Essentially the design would allow a snapshot of the flux (kinda). A large plexiglass container would need to be built, a magnet would be suspended in the center. High speed cameras would be mounted at different angles around the container. Compressed air would blast a fine ferrous powder into the box, and the cameras would snap pics. Hopefully, a nice three dimensional image would result. :)
Very nice. ;D
GB - I'm not sure you've proved your point in that test - but it's a good argument - IMHO
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: akunkeji on September 07, 2010, 02:12:47 AM
Ok, I will be publishing papers in the free time to explain the Faraday paradox.
"Faraday paradox phenomenon" is entirely reasonable, and there is no contradiction.
Eventually we will reach this conclusion: Faraday disc not inconsistent the theory of relativity/Newton's third law/theory of electromagnetism-related...
So, should not put too much energy to study it. It does not give us an extra surprise.
Just a reminder? ;D Hope you're still with us ajunkeji
Quote from: ramset on September 07, 2010, 06:12:46 PM
sigma 16
quote:
Wasting your time on this thread. The Ainslie Crew has arrived to trash anything that doesn't mention "zipons".
---------------------
When did you become a "Girly Man"[spoken like a california governor}?
?
Chet
Chet? I thought we'd made friends? ::) And NO-ONE except you has brought up the 'Z' word. Whatever next? Golly. ;D
:-*
Rosie
Here's the experiment showing the CEMF induced in the nickel coating does not cause full rotation of the stationary magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YASAyhTBeZA
In fact, any CEMF in the nickel coating will oppose the rotation of the magnet on the string, instead of causing the rotation. This is the reason for the slight oscillations with the magnet on the string. The CEMF never causes a full rotation in this experiment, which means it's not responsible for the many full rotations made easily in the other experiment. Compare both experiments, and you will see the difference.
GB
Quote from: lumen on September 15, 2010, 08:36:32 PM
I agree that the magnets should not rotate each other, and in fact a coating would make no difference. The faces need to be parallel to avoid any change in field intensity that is linking with the opposing magnet.
Magnets are not always perfectly magnetized along it's axis or face, so the faces of the magnets being parallel with each other isn't the correct way to do this. When two magnets are in attraction to each other and both are freely able to move and orientate themselves relative to each other, then they will both find their own magnetic axis so they will be parallel with each other.
GB
Quote from: lumen on September 15, 2010, 08:36:32 PM
I agree that the magnets should not rotate each other, and in fact a coating would make no difference.
I would agree with you under normal circumstances, where there is both an EMF and a CEMF present, which would cancel each other out and give a null result. But this is not the case, with the experiment where both magnets are suspended by the strings do not generate any CEMF that would normally oppose the rotation of the magnet, thus the stationary magnet will be induced with a net rotation, due to the absence of the field lines disconnecting since there is a lack of tension between their field lines because the field lines of both magnets are rotating with each other at the same relative rpm, which eliminates the tension from them being twisted. Sorry for the runaway sentence, lol.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 16, 2010, 12:17:29 AM
I would agree with you under normal circumstances, where there is both an EMF and a CEMF present, which would cancel each other out and give a null result. But this is not the case, with the experiment where both magnets are suspended by the strings do not generate any CEMF that would normally oppose the rotation of the magnet, thus the stationary magnet will be induced with a net rotation, due to the absence of the field lines disconnecting since there is a lack of tension between their field lines because the field lines of both magnets are rotating with each other at the same relative rpm, which eliminates the tension from them being twisted. Sorry for the runaway sentence, lol.
GB
I've run this through this rusty mind of mine and actually entirely agree with you GB. The only possible way the second magnet would move after twisting the first - is if there were some correspondence between the material bodies of those magnets and their flux lines. Is that right? Are we missing something? I'm going to see if I can run the question past an expert. Interesting that the twist is at a maximum of 90 degrees. I've hung the magnets from a single thread and it allows for a full 360 degree turn - but am not sure how much spin is the result of the torque in the thread? Every action has an equal and opposite? It's the only excuse I can dig up to explain this - unless you've found a way here to disprove that paradox.
Well done.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 16, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
I've run this through this rusty mind of mine and actually entirely agree with you GB. The only possible way the second magnet would move after twisting the first - is if there were some correspondence between the material bodies of those magnets and their flux lines. Is that right? Are we missing something? I'm going to see if I can run the question past an expert. Interesting that the twist is at a maximum of 90 degrees. I've hung the magnets from a single thread and it allows for a full 360 degree turn - but am not sure how much spin is the result of the torque in the thread? Every action has an equal and opposite? It's the only excuse I can dig up to explain this - unless you've found a way here to disprove that paradox.
Well done.
Rosemary
That is great you received a full 360
o rotation with the magnets suspended. I really appreciate your help and effort in this. It should continue to rotate until the tension in the nylon fibers have enough torque to overcome the tension in the field lines, at which point it will unwind itself.
I will try to suspend a magnet from the nylon fibers which will be connected to a swivel bearing to avoid and to eliminate any torque from the fibers being twisted due to the rotation. Assuming the friction of the swivel bearing is less than the torque provided when the nylon fibers were twisted, then this experiment should show a continuous rotation of the magnet which was induced into rotating.
Thanks Rosemary. Hopefully this will motivate others to replicate this simple experiment, so they can have a better understanding of what is actually happening in these experiments.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 16, 2010, 03:46:31 AM
That is great you received a full 360o rotation with the magnets suspended. I really appreciate your help and effort in this. It should continue to rotate until the tension in the nylon fibers have enough torque to overcome the tension in the field lines, at which point it will unwind itself.
I will try to suspend a magnet from the nylon fibers which will be connected to a swivel bearing to avoid and to eliminate any torque from the fibers being twisted due to the rotation. Assuming the friction of the swivel bearing is less than the torque provided when the nylon fibers were twisted, then this experiment should show a continuous rotation of the magnet which was induced into rotating.
Thanks Rosemary. Hopefully this will motivate others to replicate this simple experiment, so they can have a better understanding of what is actually happening in these experiments.
GB
I think I've figured out what is happening here. Magnets are never perfectly magnetized-- so there are areas on the poles that have a stronger field than other areas. When you have two magnets facing each other as in your test, and at least one of the magnets is free to turn, then the freely turning magnet will try to align it's strongest field point to the strongest field point of the other magnet.
This does not mean the field itself (the so called "lines of force") are rotating, but the field will have "lines of force" that change in strength as the magnet is rotated. You should be able to see this effect when you are rotating the magnet below a petri dish that is partially filled with a ferro-fluid. The lines of force (indicated by the ferro-fluid) do not rotate with the magnet, but they change in strength as the magnet is rotated.
If you made a small clear glass or clear plastic container with some ferro-fluid in it, and placed this between the two magnets in attraction-- you would see the lines of force that represent the field between the two magnets. Yes-- the lines of force in this configuration ARE linked to each other, but they will not rotate if either magnet is rotated-- however the two magnets will have a natural place where they want to align to each other, and this will be the strongest line of force (which might not be visible in this configuration.)
As Airstriker mentioned, a better test would be to substitute a ferromagnetic material that is not a permanent magnet, and then re-test. You might try a washer that is about the same size at the magnet... Even this test is not perfect though, because the material in the washer may not be homogeneous (it might have an area that has more or less permeability than the rest of the washer)-- but it should be better than a magnet in this regard, because the "strong point" in the magnet's field will have very little effect on the washer as the magnet (or the washer) is rotated.
That's probably why I didn't see this effect with the ceramic magnets-- they are made by thoroughly mixing a ferromagnetic powder (with a "binder"), and then pressing it into a disc shape, and then "sintering" that (in a kiln). The cooled material is then magnetized in a jig-- and the ferromagnetic material in the jig itself may not be perfect, which can cause the non-homogeneous field problem that we are talking about, but maybe in my case I just got lucky and obtained some well made magnets.
@Airstriker:
I performed the experiment you suggested and the results were as expected. The ferromagnetic material does not rotate with the magnet. Also, the magnet won't rotate with the ferromagnetic material either, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssj6MHFMZY8
In fact, they won't even try to rotate and there is no oscillations either. Since the magnet and the metal piece both have a conductive coating, then where is the CEMF to oppose or cause rotation?
There is a simple explanation to this. The field lines of the magnet are firmly seated to the magnet, but the field lines of the metal piece are detached from the material and are free-floating, which means the magnetic field of the magnet can freely rotate with the magnet and detached field lines of the ferromagnetic material without it's field lines disconnecting due to tension. Since the field lines aren't disconnecting, then there is no CEMF induced in the conductive coating to cause or oppose any rotation.
For the time being, I'm going to hold back some information and see how far KWP can put is foot into his mouth. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the differences between the H-field and the B-field. After posting this information, then my analysis and observations will become very clear and make total sense.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 16, 2010, 06:55:55 PM
For the time being, I'm going to hold back some information and see how far KWP can put is foot into his mouth. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the differences between the H-field and the B-field. After posting this information, then my analysis and observations will become very clear and make total sense.
@GB:
My idea of the CEMF causing the rotation was an attempt to explain your results, which were not identical with my results. However, after thinking about it some more, I came up with a more plausible solution- (see my last post, #190 above). The results of your latest experiment were as exactly as I predicted in my last post. This experiment proves that the magnetic lines of force do not rotate as a magnet is being physically rotated on it's B-axis (the magnetic axis).
It seems that your own experimental result proves my theory is correct, and your theory is wrong. Oh well, that is life (and science at it's best). Now, if you could simply admit that you were wrong, we can move on...
@All:
There are two opposing theories here. The first is that the magnetic "lines of force" rotate with a magnet that is being rotated on it's magnetic axis. The second is that the "lines of force" do not rotate with the magnet.
We have the experimental evidence of Michael Faraday on the homopolar generator:
1) When the magnet is held stationary and the disk is spun, an EMF is formed. In this case, since the magnet is not moving, this evidence is in-line with current electromagnetic theory, and has no bearing on our two theories as stated above.
2) When the disk is held stationary, and the magnet is rotated, there is no EMF formed. In this case, the theory that the "lines of force" do not rotate when the magnet is rotated is the only theory of the two that explains the results. (Since the "lines of force" are not rotating, they are not "cutting across" the conductive disk, and so there can be no EMF.)
3) When the magnet is attached to the disk, and the magnet and disk are rotated in unison, an EMF is formed. In this case, the theory that the "lines of force" do not rotate when the magnet is rotated is the only theory of the two that explains the results. (Since the "lines of force" are not rotating, but the disk is-- they are "cutting across" the conductive disk as it is rotated, and so there is an EMF.)
Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman said: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!â€
If you agree with what Richard Feynman said (that experimental data "trumps" theory), then the only conclusion you can come to is that the magnetic "lines of force" do NOT rotate with the magnet, when the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis. If you accept this theory, then there is no "paradox" at all. Any other theory is pure fantasy, and flies in the face of the established facts. There, I said it-- did I "put my foot in my mouth" GB?
Quote from: KWP on September 16, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
This does not mean the field itself (the so called "lines of force") are rotating, but the field will have "lines of force" that change in strength as the magnet is rotated. You should be able to see this effect when you are rotating the magnet below a petri dish that is partially filled with a ferro-fluid. The lines of force (indicated by the ferro-fluid) do not rotate with the magnet, but they change in strength as the magnet is rotated.
If you made a small clear glass or clear plastic container with some ferro-fluid in it, and placed this between the two magnets in attraction-- you would see the lines of force that represent the field between the two magnets. Yes-- the lines of force in this configuration ARE linked to each other, but they will not rotate if either magnet is rotated-- however the two magnets will have a natural place where they want to align to each other, and this will be the strongest line of force (which might not be visible in this configuration.)
This is where you went wrong. You are mixing and confusing the H-field with the B-field when dealing with petri dishes filled with a ferro-fluid. The H-field is the strength or intensity of the field, while the B-field is the flux density. The ferro-fluid indicating a change in strength when the magnet is rotated is showing you the H-field, and not the B-field. Wings made this same mistake with Sirzerp's method of viewing magnetic field lines. Sirzerp clearly stated in his publication the field lines being shown were not the B-field. Your petri dishes are not showing B-fields.
Airstriker is very familiar with the B-H hystersis loop, and he should know very well, that a ferromagnetic material will have a very weak external B-field until the material is over-saturated. The ferromagnetic ball in my video doesn't have much of an external B-field and is very weak, so how is there going to be an interaction with the magnet?
Also, in the experiment where both magnets were suspended and there was rotation, if there was a change in strength of the fields between the two magnets while both are rotating, then this "strong point" you are referring to should pull the magnets off center while rotating, but this doesn't happen.
Also, there is a very good reason why I used a ferromagnetic ball. Because the "strong point" with the strongest magnetization force always pulled the ferromagnetic material off center. A sphere overcomes this problem in order to carry out the experiment. No need to use two sphere magnets, because the strong point isn't an issue between two circular magnets because the magnets are fully saturated, meaning any increase in the field strength (H-field) due to a strong point, will not have a corresponding change of the B-field or flux density of the magnets.
Keep on digging.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 16, 2010, 11:47:21 PM
This is where you went wrong. You are mixing and confusing the H-field with the B-field when dealing with petri dishes filled with a ferro-fluid. The H-field is the strength or intensity of the field, while the B-field is the flux density. The ferro-fluid indicating a change in strength when the magnet is rotated is showing you the H-field, and not the B-field. Wings made this same mistake with Sirzerp's method of viewing magnetic field lines. Sirzerp clearly stated in his publication the field lines being shown were not the B-field. Your petri dishes are not showing B-fields.
Airstriker is very familiar with the B-H hystersis loop, and he should know very well, that a ferromagnetic material will have a very weak external B-field until the material is over-saturated. The ferromagnetic ball in my video doesn't have much of an external B-field and is very weak, so how is there going to be an interaction with the magnet?
Also, in the experiment where both magnets were suspended and there was rotation, if there was a change in strength of the fields between the two magnets while both are rotating, then this "strong point" you are referring to should pull the magnets off center while rotating, but this doesn't happen.
Also, there is a very good reason why I used a ferromagnetic ball. Because the "strong point" with the strongest magnetization force always pulled the ferromagnetic material off center. A sphere overcomes this problem in order to carry out the experiment. No need to use two sphere magnets, because the strong point isn't an issue between two circular magnets because the magnets are fully saturated, meaning any increase in the field strength (H-field) due to a strong point, will not have a corresponding change of the B-field or flux density of the magnets.
Keep on digging.
GB
GB,
I did not "go wrong" and there is no need for me to "keep digging".
When rare-earth magnets are made, the material is heated to the melting point, and then poured into a mold-- this process can leave voids in the material when it cools. In addition, the ferromagnetic material in the charging fixture can also have similar voids. This can lead to areas where the flux is stronger in a permanent magnet than in other areas (and areas that are weaker than the average). Note that these differences are very slight, but they are enough that two magnets can "prefer" an orientation when they are placed in a situation as in your first experiment.
You are correct about the H-Field being the total strength of the total field (related to Ampere-Turns for an electromagnet, and an equivalent for permanent magnets), and the B-field being the flux per unit area of a plane that intersects the H-field. This is pretty standard stuff that they taught us at MIT in my electromagnetics class, and of course I understand all of that. I have no idea what you are talking about after that though-- you seem to be rambling a bit, and then going off into the weeds.
As far as I'm concerned, the question as asked in the subject line of this thread has been answered, and this thread could probably now be closed. There is no "Faraday [Homopolar Generator] Paradox", unless you adhere to the fantasy that the magnetic field of a magnet rotates when the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis.
Please respond to my post #193.
Quote from: KWP on September 16, 2010, 10:57:09 PM
@All:
There are two opposing theories here. The first is that the magnetic "lines of force" rotate with a magnet that is being rotated on it's magnetic axis. The second is that the "lines of force" do not rotate with the magnet.
We have the experimental evidence of Michael Faraday on the homopolar generator:
1) When the magnet is held stationary and the disk is spun, an EMF is formed. In this case, since the magnet is not moving, this evidence is in-line with current electromagnetic theory, and has no bearing on our two theories as stated above.
2) When the disk is held stationary, and the magnet is rotated, there is no EMF formed. In this case, the theory that the "lines of force" do not rotate when the magnet is rotated is the only theory of the two that explains the results. (Since the "lines of force" are not rotating, they are not "cutting across" the conductive disk, and so there can be no EMF.)
3) When the magnet is attached to the disk, and the magnet and disk are rotated in unison, an EMF is formed. In this case, the theory that the "lines of force" do not rotate when the magnet is rotated is the only theory of the two that explains the results. (Since the "lines of force" are not rotating, but the disk is-- they are "cutting across" the conductive disk as it is rotated, and so there is an EMF.)
Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman said: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!â€
If you agree with what Richard Feynman said (that experimental data "trumps" theory), then the only conclusion you can come to is that the magnetic "lines of force" do NOT rotate with the magnet, when the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis. If you accept this theory, then there is no "paradox" at all. Any other theory is pure fantasy, and flies in the face of the established facts. There, I said it-- did I "put my foot in my mouth" GB?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36755129/B-Field-Confinement
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043991/Faraday-s-Final-Riddle
http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/paradox2.pdf
I am through debating with you. You was wrong about me using diametrically magnetized magnets, you were wrong about the CEMF induced in the nickel coating caused rotation, you are wrong about the magnetic field not rotating while both magnets suspended by strings will rotate together showing that they indeed do rotate with the magnet, you are wrong about using petri dishes with a ferro-fluid to analyze the B-field, you are wrong about your analysis of the different modes of operation proves the field remains stationary, you are wrong about the analysis of the ferromagnetic material not rotating with the magnet proves the field is stationary when the first reference I included in this post about the confined b-field fully explains this is not the case.
Continue to be wrong, it's your right and I won't take it away from you.
GB
Here is a couple of clips I made for another thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE&feature=watch_response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE&feature=watch_response)
G.B you need to show experiments you do yourself, otherwise you will never be correct.
If magnets were hanging on strings and they were level without any chance of of motion towards each other then they would not rotate each other.
Slight motions are caused by vibration and change of distance between magnets (pulling up/down)..but it will never be rotation.
If what you say is true then I could just put a coil over a spinning ring magnet and as long as I either increased or decreased the magnet speed I would see voltage in the coil, AND it would be DC....but that doesn't happen in reality. It would actually make the coil rotate against the magnet.
Not in any of my experiments does that happen!
Scotty.
Wind two perfect coils on two perfect nylon bearings on perfect plastic rod with nice sliding copper contacts with a slight distance between them - two coils-rotors
connect Dc sources to both and spin the bottom one
what do you see ?
Quote from: scotty1 on September 17, 2010, 06:47:33 AM
Here is a couple of clips I made for another thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE&feature=watch_response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE&feature=watch_response)
G.B you need to show experiments you do yourself, otherwise you will never be correct.
If magnets were hanging on strings and they were level without any chance of of motion towards each other then they would not rotate each other.
Slight motions are caused by vibration and change of distance between magnets (pulling up/down)..but it will never be rotation.
If what you say is true then I could just put a coil over a spinning ring magnet and as long as I either increased or decreased the magnet speed I would see voltage in the coil, AND it would be DC....but that doesn't happen in reality. It would actually make the coil rotate against the magnet.
Not in any of my experiments does that happen!
Scotty.
Hi Scotty. I've just started looking at your clip. But it's stopping longer than starting so will wait until it's uploaded. But as a quick observation - I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison. Your aluminium disc is paramagnetic. Doesn't that mean it will resist a magnetic field? And I'm not sure that GB is comparing this effect with induced fields anywhere at all. But it's interesting. I'd quite like to see what the effect would be if your disc was soft iron or somesuch.
My take on an induced field is that the magnetic componenets in ferromagnetic and suchlike are induced to 'extrude' corresponding flux from the material within the iron. Which effectively means that if you showered a permanent magnet with filings - then eventually you'd find a boundary related to the amount of filings - that also corresponded with the external flux from the magnet and the flux from the iron. In other words the actual flux has a quantifiable amount of something and all of it looking for solid material to 'house' that flux. Whereupon it moves into a relative 'state of rest'. From then on - no more filings can be added. Something like that.
VERY interested to see that rare earth magnets have that 'void'. I've actually found this myself. But I question that rare earth magnets are made from anything other than pure iron deposits. I'm open to correction here. It's just that the heating of magnets definitely 'degrades' a magnetic field. And I see no reason why magnets can't be made from iron - with a smudge of carbon perhaps - to help it's rigidity. Then an applied electric field and an artificial cooling to accelerate the setting? That's how I see it done. But I'm assuming everything here and open to correction. I'm inclined to think that the 'rare earth' magnet number is a marketing myth promoted by China to keep a near monopoly on the supplies. I hope I'm right - but suspect I'm wrong.
And GB I wonder if there may be some place distortion that may account for the sympathetic movement? In other words your spin may also include some displacement off the axis. Not sure. But I'm still inclined to think you're right. Be interesting to see what happens when you refine that test.
Regards,
Rosemary
check for asymmetries in the two pairs of magnets:
fix a magnet and rotate the other this should have a neutral equilibrium in all angular positions.
Quote from: wings on September 17, 2010, 11:45:36 AM
check for asymmetries in the two pairs of magnets:
fix a magnet and rotate the other this should have a neutral equilibrium in all angular positions.
Here's the conclusion to Kelly's paper. Note that the implications still need discussion. But the facts are consistent with what GB's showing us.
Conclusions
The lines of force rotate with a magnet upon its North-South axis.
The emf, that is produced in a nearby circuit by a magnet, is caused by the cutting of the
circuit by the lines of force of that magnet. It is not produced unless there is cutting of the
circuit by those lines of force; additionally the cutting must be in one direction (net), or be
by unequal force lines, if cut in two directions (net).
The Faraday Generator phenomenon is caused by the cutting of the stationary circuit by the
lines of force of the magnet, as the magnet rotates. It has previously been supposed that
the magnet is cutting its own lines of force.
When a disc is set rotating near the pole of the magnet, the results are anomalous. The
results are fully explained as being due to involvement of only a portion of the whole circuit.
'Faraday's Law' of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is
known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. One single general
rule is missing. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule.regards,
Rosemary
I think there is too much tech talk in the paper!
Sure if you spin the disc you get current but not if you spin the magnet only!
If it was true I/we could make a PM machine ;D but I've tested everything and it doesn't work because the field has to be thought of as a seperate entity to the magnet metal.
Quote from: scotty1 on September 17, 2010, 07:56:10 PM
I think there is too much tech talk in the paper!
Sure if you spin the disc you get current but not if you spin the magnet only!
If it was true I/we could make a PM machine ;D but I've tested everything and it doesn't work because the field has to be thought of as a separate entity to the magnet metal.
Agreed. But you are wasting electrons on this issue-- I think GB is more interested in being RIGHT that he is in the TRUTH.
I have seen the papers before that GB provided. It's just a bunch of relativistic voodoo, (and special relativity is based on shaky foundations-- the two postulates assumed for it's foundation are wrong).
HOWEVER, you DO have to take into account the leads of the measuring instrumentation-- that part of the paper is correct-- but all of that is moot if you build an HMG with multiple conductors in place of the single disk.
I am going to come up with an experiment that settles this issue (one way or the other), and if I am wrong I will state so publicly on this forum. Truth before ego! ;)
~KWP
P.S. -- In perusing the posts in various topics for a few months, I'm getting the feeling that there are some "disinformation agents" on this forum...
Hi guys. Here's my tuppence worth. I think that ohmage values relates to the resistance of a metallic structure. I have not been able to measure any ohmage on any of my permanent ferrite magnets. Not even when I line them up in a 'string'. They're all small disc structures so the string is effectively an 8 guage wire. But I COULD measure an ac voltage. Therefore I would conclude that if resistance is zero and voltage is greater than zero then- no matter WHAT I do, I will not extrapolate usable energy from the magnets themselves. Unless I apply heat - in which case I destroy the magnetised condition of the structure.
However. When the magnet induces a magnetic field in juxtaposed inductive/conductive materials - then I can definitely measure a voltage and most inductive/conductive materials have an associated ohmage value. Therefore if resistance is greater than zero and if there's a measurable voltage then I can get usable energy from that structure.
The difference between the two structures is perhaps this. The atomic 'domains' in a permananet magnet are fixed and do not correspond to the flux lines extruded from the magnet. In magnetisable material they are not fixed and they do correspond. Since - unlike the permanent magnet - the inductive/conductive material is able to generate heat then I would conclude that ohmage and heat are related. But it first requires the application of changing magnetic fields which is managed by turning a rotor with attached magnets - for instance. This varies the material structure of the induced field. It does not vary the structure of the permanent magnet.
The question then is what is the property of Ohmage that also allows for this heat? I would propose that it is related to the crystalline structure of that inductive/conductive material and that it is a measure of the organised or disorganised state of its crystalline abodes. The more disorganised the greater the consequent heat. Inductive material is more disorganised than conductive. Therefore inductive will generate greater heat than conductive.
The relevance to this is that the extruded magnetic fields in conductive/inductive material - that result from proximity to permanent magnets is then related to that crystralline structure. And this is what actually determines the usuable properties of Inductive Laws. Magnets of themselves are not usable. Magnetisable materials are also - by themselves not usable. It requires an interaction of both - and, more to the point, the 'breaking' of those flux lines in that magnetisable material - which is measured as voltage - to generate anything usable.
Therefore. Inductive Laws require the application of both permanent and induced flux to generate work. And magnet on magnet interactions from two or more permanent magnets do NOT result in an electromagnetic interaction precisely because there is no discernable resistance in the material structures of either magnets. They conjoin at an angle of 180 degrees - but any variation to that angle of interaction allows for a complete break in their conjoined lines. This much evident in GB's tests. This may induce a marginal positional adjustment in space - of the entire magnet. But it will invariably then default to a preferred 'joined' state as allowed and subject to vagaries of their positions in space.
In as much as the magnetic field from a permanent magnet does not rely on a continued electric interaction, therefore is there the possibility that a magnetic field can be seen as a fundamental force existing without the application of an electric field. And a continued electromagnetic interaction relies on a flux that is changing its position in space. Else - without that changing position of flux - the material interaction defaults to a preferred 'rest state'. Interestingly the angle of interaction at 180 degrees determines a magnet on magnet interaction. An interaction at 90 degrees determines an electromagnetic interaction.
That's my tuppence worth. Sorry it's a bit ponderous. ;D
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: wings on September 17, 2010, 11:45:36 AM
check for asymmetries in the two pairs of magnets:
fix a magnet and rotate the other this should have a neutral equilibrium in all angular positions.
@ gravityblock
sorry! I have not seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YASAyhTBeZA&feature=channel
Let's look at this from the perspective that both the rotating field and stationary field theories are possibly incomplete, and can be easily unified.
This debate has been going on for more than a century now. This is what we do know. When the magnet, disc, and external circuit rotate together (we'll call this mode 1), there is an EMF in both the disc and external circuit. The emf is pointing in the same direction in both the disc and external circuit, thus canceling each other out either at the rim or at the axis, depending on the direction of rotation and the direction of the magnetic field. With this in mind, let's now take a look at a rotating magnet, rotating disc, and stationary external circuit (mode 2). In mode 2, the stationary external circuit will have an equal but opposite emf than the disc. How can a stationary external circuit be induced with an equal but opposite emf as the disc, if the external circuit doesn't cut any flux because both the field and external circuit are stationary? Let's take note of the fact that in mode 1, both the disc and external circuit had moving charges and produced the same emf. In mode 2, the disc had moving charges and the external circuit didn't have any moving charges while producing equal but opposite EMF.
In a rotating magnet, stationary disc, and stationary external circuit (mode 3), there is no net EMF induced in either. If we compare mode 2 and mode 3, then the stationary external circuit in mode 3 says the stationary external circuit in mode 2 should have no EMF, but this is not the case. We have a contradiction at this time between mode 2 and mode 3, thus a Paradox in regards to, does the field rotate with the magnet or not . Let's take note of the fact that in mode 3, there are no moving charges in either the disc or stationary external circuit.
This paradox isn't based on opposing views. This paradox is based on experimental data along with an incomplete or wrong theory. The experimental data says there is a field which rotates with the magnet, and a secondary field which remains stationary.
With this in mind, let's take a quick look at all three modes, to see if this revised theory is in-line with experimental data. In mode 1, the rotating disc and rotating external circuit cuts the stationary field and both are induced with an emf pointing in the same direction. The rotating circuit and rotating disc do not cut the field lines of the rotating field, thus there isn't an opposite emf induced. In mode 2, the rotating disc cuts the stationary field and is induced with an EMF, while the stationary external circuit is cut by the rotating field and is induced with an equal and opposite EMF relative to the disc. So far so good.
In mode 3, we run into a slight problem and this will need to be further analyzed, but I think there is a simple solution according to the experimental data. We must remember, In mode 3, there are no moving charges in either the disc or external circuit. The charges on the disc and external circuit will be cut by the rotating field and both will be induced with the same EMF. The charges induced by the rotating field are now moving and will cut the stationary field and be induced with an EMF that opposes the moving charge induced by the rotating field, thus there is no net movement of the charges and no EMF detected. In mode 1, an EMF is detected because the charges are moving with a net motion due to the mechanical rotation of the disc and external circuit, and they were cut by the stationary field lines. In mode 3, there is no EMF detected because the charges have no net motion and aren't pointing in any particular direction because they were cut by both the stationary and rotating field lines.
Faraday's Paradox Solved?
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 18, 2010, 08:01:49 AM
Faraday's Paradox Solved?
GB
YES. That's an excellent summation.
Regards,
Rosemary
{... sigh ...}
Here a direct link to Dr. Kelly's paper "Faraday's Final Riddle; Does the Field Rotate with a Magnet?":
www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/kelly_unipolar.pdf
Dr. Kelly's paper is a beautifully written piece of disinformation (with lots of scientific sounding babble) that is designed to hide the truth from you, and to support the "special theory of relativity" (which is flawed). He knows that electromagnetics is a difficult subject matter-- even for seasoned physicists and engineers, and he deliberately obfuscates what is really going on through misapplication of the established theory, and in addition, he carefully chooses the experiments that show an outcome that matches his theory-- while (probably deliberately) ignoring the fact that the experiments (or their application to the theory) are flawed. He tries to say that Faraday's law is flawed, but the truth is that Faraday's law is not flawed and always works 100% of the time when properly applied against the subject matter for which the law was created.
Take a look at the "Tilly test" [figure 13]-- when you open one switch and close the other, there is supposed to be a "change in flux" (because there is a change in area). This is a misunderstanding of what "flux" is-- in electromagnetics (and as Faraday's law is applied), "flux" is the "intensity of the field per unit area" (or "number of lines of force per unit area" if you prefer)-- for example "100 lines of force per square centimeter". In the "Tilly test" if the field is static, then nowhere in the area enclosed by any of the conductors has ANY change of "lines of force per square centimeter"-- and therefore there will be no EMF generated. The flux does not change in the area enclosed by switch "A", and it does not change in the area enclosed by switch "B". The "Tilly test" did not "fail" Faraday's rule at all-- in fact it reinforces it-- but the author leads you astray by claiming that something significant is going on here.
Now let's take a look at figure 9. The "lines of force" are cutting across conductor A-B, which generates an EMF in conductor A-B, but then the "lines of force" [LOF from now on] are ALSO cutting across conductor D-C (which causes an EMF). Because these two conductors are connected in series, and the EMF in each is opposing and equal, there will be no "net" EMF to be read by the galvanometer on the left of the diagram. If you were to place conductor A-B or the other side of the magnet (as is shown on the right side of the diagram, but with the connecting wire much closer to the rim of the magnet), then you would see an EMF on the galvanometer on the right of the diagram-- (in fact the two conductors being connected in series, would produce 2 x EMF in this case). This is because the other wire would be influenced by the other pole of the magnet-- and since the direction is the same as wire D-C, the polarity of the EMF in wire A-B would be opposite of wire D-C in this case, and so the EMF is additive. Dr. Kelly didn't talk about this in his text, because that would not show what he wants the reader to believe.
There are people in various governments that have a lot of secret projects (some of which I have worked on), that would like very much for the general public to never learn the REAL ("true") physics. The current physics text books (and instruction) have deliberate omissions, obfuscations, and disinformation that (together with the support of certain individuals) is specifically designed to keep us all from learning the real truth. We have to be really careful about science papers written by supposed "authority figures" (in this case, a PhD with lot's of letters behind his name), because people have agendas-- even very intelligent people that we would like to believe are trying to get at the truth. We have to engage in critical thinking, and perform our own experiments. We need to publish the results of these experiments for peer review (on this forum)-- so that everyone has a chance to tear them apart (by pointing out possible flaws in the experiment, etc.) We need to keep refining the experiments until no flaw can be found by anyone, and then those experiments need to be duplicated by other researchers (with the results published here), and most importantly, we need to do the very best we can to leave our egos out of the process. THAT is the ONLY way that we are going to get at the truth.
I have been thinking of an experiment that will settle this one way or another. I need to make a drawing, but right now I have to leave for a family get together, and so I will post it later for peer review.
Quote from: KWP on September 18, 2010, 04:12:12 PM
{... sigh ...}
Here a direct link to Dr. Kelly's paper "Faraday's Final Riddle; Does the Field Rotate with a Magnet?":
www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/kelly_unipolar.pdf
Dr. Kelly's paper is a beautifully written piece of disinformation.
From what I read on the paper, it looked to be quite accurate to me.
Usually some of the cases are left out, but this paper covered them all and the same thing is always true. If it generates a current flow then there is an opposing force generated also.
Quote from: lumen on September 19, 2010, 10:37:30 AM
From what I read on the paper, it looked to be quite accurate to me.
Usually some of the cases are left out, but this paper covered them all and the same thing is always true. If it generates a current flow then there is an opposing force generated also.
Some of the things discussed in the paper are accurate. The best way to tell a lie, is to dress it up in half-truths.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 18, 2010, 02:57:05 AM
Hi guys. Here's my tuppence worth. I think that ohmage values relates to the resistance of a metallic structure. I have not been able to measure any ohmage on any of my permanent ferrite magnets. Not even when I line them up in a 'string'. They're all small disc structures so the string is effectively an 8 guage wire. But I COULD measure an ac voltage. Therefore I would conclude that if resistance is zero and voltage is greater than zero then- no matter WHAT I do, I will not extrapolate usable energy from the magnets themselves. Unless I apply heat - in which case I destroy the magnetised condition of the structure.
However. When the magnet induces a magnetic field in juxtaposed inductive/conductive materials - then I can definitely measure a voltage and most inductive/conductive materials have an associated ohmage value. Therefore if resistance is greater than zero and if there's a measurable voltage then I can get usable energy from that structure.
The difference between the two structures is perhaps this. The atomic 'domains' in a permananet magnet are fixed and do not correspond to the flux lines extruded from the magnet. In magnetisable material they are not fixed and they do correspond. Since - unlike the permanent magnet - the inductive/conductive material is able to generate heat then I would conclude that ohmage and heat are related. But it first requires the application of changing magnetic fields which is managed by turning a rotor with attached magnets - for instance. This varies the material structure of the induced field. It does not vary the structure of the permanent magnet.
The question then is what is the property of Ohmage that also allows for this heat? I would propose that it is related to the crystalline structure of that inductive/conductive material and that it is a measure of the organised or disorganised state of its crystalline abodes. The more disorganised the greater the consequent heat. Inductive material is more disorganised than conductive. Therefore inductive will generate greater heat than conductive.
The relevance to this is that the extruded magnetic fields in conductive/inductive material - that result from proximity to permanent magnets is then related to that crystralline structure. And this is what actually determines the usuable properties of Inductive Laws. Magnets of themselves are not usable. Magnetisable materials are also - by themselves not usable. It requires an interaction of both - and, more to the point, the 'breaking' of those flux lines in that magnetisable material - which is measured as voltage - to generate anything usable.
Therefore. Inductive Laws require the application of both permanent and induced flux to generate work. And magnet on magnet interactions from two or more permanent magnets do NOT result in an electromagnetic interaction precisely because there is no discernable resistance in the material structures of either magnets. They conjoin at an angle of 180 degrees - but any variation to that angle of interaction allows for a complete break in their conjoined lines. This much evident in GB's tests. This may induce a marginal positional adjustment in space - of the entire magnet. But it will invariably then default to a preferred 'joined' state as allowed and subject to vagaries of their positions in space.
In as much as the magnetic field from a permanent magnet does not rely on a continued electric interaction, therefore is there the possibility that a magnetic field can be seen as a fundamental force existing without the application of an electric field. And a continued electromagnetic interaction relies on a flux that is changing its position in space. Else - without that changing position of flux - the material interaction defaults to a preferred 'rest state'. Interestingly the angle of interaction at 180 degrees determines a magnet on magnet interaction. An interaction at 90 degrees determines an electromagnetic interaction.
That's my tuppence worth. Sorry it's a bit ponderous. ;D
Regards,
Rosemary
Very well said.
GB
Nikola Tesla -- "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination" -- (Delivered before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Columbia College, N.Y., May 20, 1891):
"""
...
About fifteen, years ago, Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact; namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current. Leaving out of consideration the precise nature of the mechanism, which produces the attraction and repulsion of currents, and conceiving the electrostatically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magnetism. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules; we can see that these lines must be closed, that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way, the most puzzling phenomenon. of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Ampere theory without possessing the vital defect of the same, namely, the assumption of molecular currents. Without enlarging further upon the subject, I would say, that I look upon all electrostatic, current and magnetic phenomena as being due to electrostatic molecular forces.
...
"""
Since the Earth is both rotating and revolving around the sun, and simultaneously the solar system is moving towards the constellation Leo, we have to assume that all charges have magnetic fields.
Imagine if you will, a sole electron traveling through space-- it will have a magnetic field. That field, would look like concentric rings (like when you drop a pebble in a pond), but since the electron is moving, and it takes time for the ripples to expand out, the ripples would follow more a cone-shape that follows behind the electron (much like the wake of a boat traveling in the water, but in 3 dimensions).
Now, in your mind, create another electron that is traveling a parallel course-- say separated by 1 millimeter from the first electron. The second electron also has magnetic-wake following behind it. But, in this case, the magnetic ripples will have a tendency to combine together-- so the cone-shape is a sequence of ever-larger ellipses rather than a sequence of ever-larger circles.
Now, in this same thought experiment, add even more electrons-- maybe thousands of them-- all traveling in the same direction, and all very close to each other. These will produce an even more powerful magnetic-wake behind the group of electrons.
Now, imagine a string of electrons traveling in the same direction-- while each electron will have a cone-shaped "magnetic wake", to an outside observer it appears as though there are only concentric rings around the line of electrons. This is what we might measure as a "magnetic field" around a wire. If we form that wire into a coil, the individual magnetic wakes constructively combine in a manner that we see as the magnetic field, complete with "lines of force" [LOF]-- a pattern that can be shown with ferro-fluid or iron filings.
Now, imagine a permanent magnet, that has a lot of unpaired charges, and these charges are all revolving around a very tiny circle. Each unpaired charge will produce a corresponding magnetic field, and when you combine billions and billions of them (aligned in the same direction), the individual fields combine in a manner that creates what we see as the total magnetic field. The individual ripples (or LOF) combine constructively in such a manner that they appear to bunch together into LOF that are so large that we humans can actually see them with the aid of ferro-fluid or iron-filings. So, the LOF (which are only ripples in the aether) are no longer "tied to" or "associated with" the individual unpaired charges that originally created them.
So, [and this is where I am going with this], the magnetic field is only 3-dimensional "ripples" in the aether-- and once the ripples are created, they continue on as an entity of their own-- expanding out into infinity until they become so small that they are no longer measurable or significant. If you turn an electron on the axis in which it is traveling, there is no reason to believe that the magnetic-wake that is following it will also turn. The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is nothing more than the combined "wake" (in the aether), with the "ripples" in the wake interfering constructively. And now we get into the weirdness of quantum electrodynamics-- when you rotate a chunk of mass, the velocity of the electron whirling around the nucleus does not change-- (the angular velocity and orbital velocities of the individual particles in the atoms are preserved), so the individual atoms in the chunk of mass will not "rotate" at all, but they will translate around in a circular motion about the axis of rotation of the chunk of mass. The same logic applies to an aggregate of billions and billions of unpaired charges as it does to a single free charge-- spinning the aggregate on the axis of charge revolution will not affect the magnetic-wake produced be each individual charge, and by extension the aggregate magnetic-wake will not be affected. This is also true for the equivalent magnet made from a coil of wire with a current flowing in the wire-- rotating the coil of wire (or solenoid) on it's magnetic axis will also not affect the magnetic-wake that the coil of wire is creating in the aether.
Quote from: KWP on September 20, 2010, 02:39:08 PM
So, [and this is where I am going with this], the magnetic field is only 3-dimensional "ripples" in the aether-- and once the ripples are created, they continue on as an entity of their own-- expanding out into infinity until they become so small that they are no longer measurable or significant. If you turn an electron on the axis in which it is traveling, there is no reason to believe that the magnetic-wake that is following it will also turn. The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is nothing more than the combined "wake" (in the aether), with the "ripples" in the wake interfering constructively. And now we get into the weirdness of quantum electrodynamics-- when you rotate a chunk of mass, the velocity of the electron whirling around the nucleus does not change-- (the angular velocity and orbital velocities of the individual particles in the atoms are preserved), so the individual atoms in the chunk of mass will not "rotate" at all, but they will translate around in a circular motion about the axis of rotation of the chunk of mass. The same logic applies to an aggregate of billions and billions of unpaired charges as it does to a single free charge-- spinning the aggregate on the axis of charge revolution will not affect the magnetic-wake produced be each individual charge, and by extension the aggregate magnetic-wake will not be affected. This is also true for the equivalent magnet made from a coil of wire with a current flowing in the wire-- rotating the coil of wire (or solenoid) on it's magnetic axis will also not affect the magnetic-wake that the coil of wire is creating in the aether.
So then, if the magnetic field generated by the moving electron is separate in space from the electron, how can the same electron be moved by another magnetic field?
Quote from: lumen on September 20, 2010, 06:46:25 PM
So then, if the magnetic field generated by the moving electron is separate in space from the electron, how can the same electron be moved by another magnetic field?
The same way a surfer rides a big wave on the ocean. The magnetic fields can destructively or constructively interfere, but because the charge is affected by the field, they tend to "meld together" in mutual constructive interference. If you go back to the two electrons in space thought experiment, you will immediately realize that the two electrons (both being negatively charged) want to push each other apart due to the electric field-- but the magnetic-wave action between the two electrons wants to push the electrons together-- so there is a battle, but some equilibrium is reached and maintained. It's kind of difficult to put into words, but that is what I think may be happening...
It is highly likely that some kind if similar action is happening with electric fields, but they are orthogonal to magnetic fields, so an even more bizarre explanation will be needed to explain that. Eric Dollard has a theory that there are no electric monopoles-- that all electric charges are connected to a companion charge (somewhere in the universe-- either very near or even far away)-- which can be easily accomplished by adding an extra dimension-- (the electric charges are connected together by what might be described as a wormhole). If this is true, then the equations for the electric and magnetic fields in Maxwell's theory become symmetrical-- and I like that (symmetry is more simple and beautiful)...
This also might explain inertia-- as a mass (made of charges) is accelerated, a magnetic-wake is set up (which takes energy to make)-- but once set up, the frontal wave on the wake pushes the mass along (like the surfer in our analogy above). Any change in velocity, orientation, or direction of the mass will have to fight against the frontal wave of the magnetic-wake, but once enough energy is input to the system to make the desired change, an equilibrium is reached, and the mass continues in the new direction (or velocity or orientation). For this to be true, a neutral particle (like a neutron) would have to be made up of an electron and a proton-- but I don't know if this is the case-- I am not a theoretical particle physicist. (It would be great if someone familiar with that world would chime in here).
I'm just thinking out loud here...
Quote from: KWP on September 20, 2010, 02:39:08 PM
Since the Earth is both rotating and revolving around the sun, and simultaneously the solar system is moving towards the constellation Leo, we have to assume that all charges have magnetic fields.
Not sure how you get to this conclusion KWP. I thought Leo is a satellite constellation around the Milky Way. Are we moving towards Leo and away from our own galaxy?
Quote from: KWP on September 20, 2010, 02:39:08 PMImagine if you will, a sole electron traveling through space-- it will have a magnetic field. That field, would look like concentric rings (like when you drop a pebble in a pond), but since the electron is moving, and it takes time for the ripples to expand out, the ripples would follow more a cone-shape that follows behind the electron (much like the wake of a boat traveling in the water, but in 3 dimensions).
Now, in your mind, create another electron that is traveling a parallel course-- say separated by 1 millimeter from the first electron. The second electron also has magnetic-wake following behind it. But, in this case, the magnetic ripples will have a tendency to combine together-- so the cone-shape is a sequence of ever-larger ellipses rather than a sequence of ever-larger circles.
Now, in this same thought experiment, add even more electrons-- maybe thousands of them-- all traveling in the same direction, and all very close to each other. These will produce an even more powerful magnetic-wake behind the group of electrons.
Now, imagine a string of electrons traveling in the same direction-- while each electron will have a cone-shaped "magnetic wake", to an outside observer it appears as though there are only concentric rings around the line of electrons. This is what we might measure as a "magnetic field" around a wire. If we form that wire into a coil, the individual magnetic wakes constructively combine in a manner that we see as the magnetic field, complete with "lines of force" [LOF]-- a pattern that can be shown with ferro-fluid or iron filings.
This is very well explained as a pattern - but I have a problem with your fundamental postulate. You picture the electrons travelling parallel to each other strung up as a 'washing line' - so to speak. I'm not sure that this is representative of 'current flow' or electric charge movement which is seen more as the one electron travelling in the wake of the second. That's first assuming that current flow is seen as electron flow in the first instance. If, as you recommend we then join the ends of that washing line - then where would the 'path' continue? It could, perhaps orbit - like a children on a merry-go-round - but that wouldn't transfer that orbit through space. Rather it would be orbiting around a fixed axis in a fixed position in space.
Then. You give us a picture of ripples expanding away from the source - being the electron. But that 'ripple' must surely be another separate medium to the electron. Else the electron itself would be manifesting and 'putting out' an infinite amount of magnetism in the form of those ripples. And the evidence is that magnetic fields have defined boundaries.
KWP - this is such an interesting exercise - the art of picturing these movements as patterns. But I think it requires a logical sequence as well as those symmetries that you describe so well. My own take - in terms of your analogy - would be that the ripples are extant - in the form of material properties to magnetic fields. In other words it comprises particles that form the field. And these, in turn, move the electron. It's effectively the flip side to your own picture. That way - the lines of force become the property of a more basic and fundamental field that is somehow hidden from view. And what we then see is the electron interacting with these fields. Since we know that electrons orbit an atom's nucleus - which orbit is consistent with those spatial demarcations described as energy levels - then, perhaps those energy levels comprise hidden magnetic fields. If they're orbiting - as proposed - then we would NEVER be able to find them through any instruments designed to measure voltage imbalance any more than we could detect a voltage imbalance if our Earth's magnetic fields simply orbited the equator - so to speak.
What's being proposed here is that magnetic fields may - themselves -
be made up of particles. And maybe this is the source of those aether energies.
Regards,
Rosemary
edited
Guys - to get back on topic. This point is my whole point. I cannot see how we can claim that the extruded fields from a permanent magnet can, in any way, be considered to be interacting with the material of the magnet if we cannot also measure some resistance in that interaction. There appears to be none. No Ohmage at all. But I do measure an ac - and NOT dc voltage or potential difference. Resistance is a property of magnetism - else our standard multimeters would not be able to measure it. Therefore I would propose that resistance relates to the electromagnetic potential condition of the magnetic fields within the material being measured. And if there is no evidence of resistance then I cannot see that the fields are the result of an electromagnetic interaction within the material of the manget itself. They appear to orbit - independently of that interaction. A force apart from the electric field.
In which case they would be able to assemble or disassemble against other proximate fields - without the magnets themselves being materially altered by that interaction. Only the lines of force may be extended depending on whether they conjoin with other magnets or other magnetic fields. And when those conjunctions are then broken - then I suspect that the flux returns to its source - in tact. And I think this is the question posed by the faraday paradox. Do the magnetic fields result from a continued and simultaneous electric interaction to provide the electromagnetic interaction? Or do magnetic fields in permanent magnets simply manifest independently of a continued electromagnetic interaction? I would plumb for the latter as evidenced in this entire lack of any measurable Ohmage in permanent magnets. Which also means that resistance is then a measure of that continued electromagnetic interaction within the body of any material which also then measures its potential to interact with magnetic fields.
Regards
Rosemary
edited
Well I hope this could be a better test for field rotation, even though some problems exist with the measurement device or what could be used.
Suppose you have a magnet and only two bars connected at a pivot in the center above the surface. The thin wire along the outside is for now, a measuring device.
As one of the bars is rotated, a current would appear as the field lines were cut because you would be forcing the field lines to cross one or the other bars to escape the ever narrowing space between them.
Now with a third bar, as the outer most bar is rotated and the other two remain stationary, the field lines will again be broken and a current generated. If the field is floating free in space, then as the outer bar moves some field lines will cross the center bar and an equal amount will cross the other bar also.
Some where at a point of equal spacing, there should show a current generated between all three of the bars, even though you are only moving one of them.
Lumen. That's really interesting. I see current flow enabled by the thin connecting lines that you state is for measuring. If the material is paramagnetic/diamagnetic/ferromagnetic - whatever - the flux from the magnet will either bend around the tripod or establish a sympathetic continual path through the tripod.
Material has never been found to be the basic structure of flux. According to our classicists nothing - including light - exceeds light speed. If flux is actually material that is structured along faraday's lines of force - and if these particles orbit at speeds that exceed light speed - then they would always be invisible - or out of reach - of light itself. This means that the adjustment of the lines of force, through space - would precede and proceed the movement of the rotating bar/bars. Therefore there would be no 'threat' to the stability of those lines of force. A discerned proximity of the moving tripod bars would be preceded and proceeded by a spatial adjustment of the lines of force - and so on - throughout an entire rotation.
Maybe?
Regards,
edited
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Have you seen this video with an inverted field, http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.wmv Everything is as expected until the 4 minute mark in the video.
In the above video, a child can see how the inverted field, indicated by the white piece of paper, will rotate with the magnet. The inverted field will always follow the white piece of paper. Now, if we are in the rotating frame and rotated with the magnet, then the inverted field will be stationary relative to our position.
In conclusion, the field rotates in a stationary reference frame while the field remains stationary in a rotating reference frame. It doesn't matter if the magnet rotates or not. As long as there is relative motion between the stationary conductor and the rotating conductor, then both conductors will be cut by the fields and will be induced with equal but opposite EMF so current can flow.
1) Stationary Conductor will be cut by a rotating field.
2) Rotating Conductor will be cut by a stationary field.
One of the conductors will be cut by the applied field, while the other conductor will be cut by the induced field.
GB
GB. I've tried EVERYTHING. I simply can't open that file. Can you give another link - or explain what I'm doing wrong.
Sorry to impose. I'm useless unless things are on youtube.
Regards,
Rosemary
Something that may be worth looking at:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 21, 2010, 03:00:57 PM
GB. I've tried EVERYTHING. I simply can't open that file. Can you give another link - or explain what I'm doing wrong.
Sorry to impose. I'm useless unless things are on youtube.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's a YouTube link,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbfTgGEtzg0Additional information about the experiment done in the video,
http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/GB
Quote from: scotty1 on September 17, 2010, 07:56:10 PM
I think there is too much tech talk in the paper!
Sure if you spin the disc you get current but not if you spin the magnet only!
Yyyyyyy....... NO ! Actually you will get current. In special setup.
Quote from: KWP on September 18, 2010, 01:08:39 AM
I have seen the papers before that GB provided. It's just a bunch of relativistic voodoo, (and special relativity is based on shaky foundations-- the two postulates assumed for it's foundation are wrong).
...
He tries to say that Faraday's law is flawed, but the truth is that Faraday's law is not flawed and always works 100% of the time when properly applied against the subject matter for which the law was created.
Ok Mr. Special MIT relativistic voodoo... Try to explain this with your 100% working Faraday's law:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
As for rotating magnetic field - it's rotating but we cannot see it rotate ;) Sounds strange but let me explain. Let's make it simple. Imagine an apple. A perfectly symmetrical apple (not round like a ball but symmetrical on one of it's axis). Now, let's rotate this apple around it's axis of symmetry. Try slow and fast rotation. When you look at it what do you see ? Do you see a rotating apple ? No you see a static apple. It's rotation doesn't affect the way you see it. It's always static for you.
Magnetic field lines, in fact look exactly the same like this symmetrical apple. This field lines make a perfect symmetrical "shell", so when you rotate the magnet you will not see any change, because this shell will always look the same for you. Conclusion - we're not able to see the rotating magnetic field, so looking at it relatively, we say it's not rotating.
As for GB's interesting experiment. Imagine a not perfectly symmetrical apple. Actually, imagine two not perfectly symmetrical apples. Make them rotate. What do you see? Hmmm... yes we can see them rotate. And if this two assymetrical objects interact with each other, they will actually act a set of two sprockets. If one of them rotates, the other one will also rotate. Just what we can see in the video.
And yes, the differences between these two apples (magnets) are very small - that's why you can only see them rotate when there is "no" friction - they are attached to strings. But there is a very simple experiment to confirm what I say without using strings and no friction environment. Take two big circular magnets. Place 2 (4) small magnets on every big magnet (they should be in attraction mode). If you do so, you will actually have two magnetic sprockets. Now take these two big magnets and hold them against each other (in attraction or repulsion mode - doesn't really matter). Now rotate one of the two big magnets. Will the other one rotate ? Yes it will (but check it yourself). How is it different than GB's experiment ?
The same theory applies to magnet - metal disc configuration. Just imagine a sprocket and a washer. A sprocket will not move (rotate) a washer.
All in all, GB's experiment has nothing to do with Faraday's Paradox. Anyway there is such thing as Faraday's Paradox and it has nothing to do with voodoo.
I personally like the following proven sentence:
"Faraday's Law is only valid if work is performed in bringing about the change in flux."I also recommend reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox
Quote from: poynt99 on September 21, 2010, 05:58:31 PM
Something that may be worth looking at:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
.99
? Poynty ? is that really you? :o WHAT A PLEASURE. Welcome back from wherever it is that you've been.
Quote from: Airstriker on September 21, 2010, 09:18:09 PM
Anyway there is such thing as Faraday's Paradox and it has nothing to do with voodoo.
The Faraday's Paradox isn't anymore paradoxical than two people disagreeing on which direction the hands of a clock rotate due to them having different reference points. A person looking at the front face of a clock will say the hands are moving CW, while a person looking at the back face of a clock will say the hands are moving CCW. Both people should realize there is no Paradox once they take into consideration they are looking at the clock from different frames of references. I sure hope mankind has moved beyond this simple truth, but it appears he is confused by it time and time again.
The Faraday disc produces a continuous DC output of a given polarity in the stationary conductor, but in the rotating conductor there is a continuous DC output with an opposite polarity.
So, if a person is always in the stationary frame or always in the rotating frame, or only taking one frame into consideration, then one will come to the conclusion there is a continuous DC output. Now, if a person moves between the rotating and stationary frames, then he will see there is an alternating current at a frequency according to how fast the person is moving between the different frames.
The rotating conductor will see a stationary field, while the stationary conductor will see a rotating field. The fact the rotating conductor is induced with a different polarity than the stationary conductor, is evidence one of the conductors is cut by the applied field of the magnet, while the other conductor is cut by the induced field in the other reference frame.
There is no Paradox if you look at the system as a whole or take both the rotating and stationary frames into consideration, instead of only looking at it from one reference frame only.
A person may see an electric field in one frame, while another person in a different reference frame will see a magnetic field. There is no paradox, just a simple elementary truth which mankind should know by now, but it appears that this simple truth is a stumbling block for most and will call it relativistic voodoo.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 22, 2010, 07:08:56 AM
The Faraday's Paradox isn't anymore paradoxical than two people disagreeing on which direction the hands of a clock rotate due to them having different reference points. A person looking at the front face of a clock will say the hands are moving CW, while a person looking at the back face of a clock will say the hands are moving CCW. Both people should realize there is no Paradox once they take into consideration they are looking at the clock from different frames of references. I sure hope mankind has moved beyond this simple truth, but it appears he is confused by it time and time again.
The Faraday disc produces a continuous DC output of a given polarity in the stationary conductor, but in the rotating conductor there is a continuous DC output with an opposite polarity.
So, if a person is always in the stationary frame or always in the rotating frame, or only taking one frame into consideration, then one will come to the conclusion there is a continuous DC output. Now, if a person moves between the rotating and stationary frames, then he will see there is an alternating current at a frequency according to how fast the person is moving between the different frames.
The rotating conductor will see a stationary field, while the stationary conductor will see a rotating field. The fact the rotating conductor is induced with a different polarity than the stationary conductor, is evidence one of the conductors is cut by the applied field of the magnet, while the other conductor is cut by the induced field in the other reference frame.
There is no Paradox if you look at the system as a whole or take both the rotating and stationary frames into consideration, instead of only looking at it from one reference frame only.
A person may see an electric field in one frame, while another person in a different reference frame will see a magnetic field. There is no paradox, just a simple elementary truth which mankind should know by now, but it appears that this simple truth is a stumbling block for most and will call it relativistic voodoo.
GB
Very neatly explained. This is beginning to sound a bit like a 'fan club' here GB. LOL But this is indeed very well said.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 22, 2010, 07:31:48 AM
Very neatly explained. This is beginning to sound a bit like a 'fan club' here GB. LOL But this is indeed very well said.
Regards,
Rosemary
Indeed, nicely said. However I don't agree with the statement that there is no such thing as Faraday's paradox. There is, because you cannot explain certain experiments using Faraday's Law. The situations when you cannot explain things using a law which you normaly apply in such situations are called paradox. You can explain them using maybe different laws or theories (like the one we're proposing here - STR) but that's a different story. Paradox is paradox.
Guys - a small tribute to a project that our students are working on in conjunction with the French Institute of Technology. The scale model built by Theo. Very nice indeed.
ABJECT APOLOGIES. I posted in the wrong thread. And I CAN'T delete the picture.
SO SORRY ALL. ??? When Steve gets back I'll ask him to delete this.
Rosemary
Ok guys. So here's another consideration.
Assume that Faraday's lines of force - orbit - in some sort of synchronous arrangement. And assume that they orbit with a shared justification - clockwise or anticlockwise. Then the sum of the fields would comprise lines of force that have length, breadth and depth. Then cut through the field like slicing Airstriker's 'apple' in half - either along the 'poles' of the apple or through its equator. Either way the length of the lines of force on the outside boundary of that apple would be of greater length than those on the inside. Also. One half of each orbit would be shielded from the other half of each orbit because one half of each orbit would moving through the material body of the apple. The other half would be moving through the space around the apple.
Now. Presume that each line of force comprises little spherical magnets. They've lined up. Head to toe. So. There is perfect magnetic alignment along the strings. There's imperfect alignment between one string and another. The imperfections are the result of variable string lengths which prevent a sympathetic polar alignment. Each string - each line of force - attracts one magnet to another. Each neighbouring string repels other strings. Therefore does the field NEVER reach a rest state. They would orbit continuously - in an attempt to reach a rest state which would be forever prevented because of the innate repulsion/attraction extant within the field itself.
Now. To add to the complexities. Each orbit of each string - through 360 degrees would represent a justification. One half of that direction is opposite to the other half - which is GB's 'relative perspective'. In effect - not only is the entire field orbiting - but each half of each orbit diametrically opposes each half of each other orbit. They would share the SAME direction, clockwise or otherwise, but one half of the entire string would be going in precisely the opposite direction to the other half of that string. One half of the entire field would be moving opposite to the other half. If the one half was travelling 'up' the other half would be travelling 'down'. If one half was charged 'north' the other half would be charged 'south'. This because charge is determined NOT by the innate properties of any particle - but by the direction it moves within a magnetic field.
Therefore. Each part of each field would have a 'charge' property. But the entire field would be neutral. So. Back to GB's point. If I were positioned inside the apple I would experience a single justification or charge. But iI I were outside the field I'd also experience a single justification - but opposite to the inside justification.
So. If the basic postulate is right. If the lines of force comprise little dipoles that are lined up head to toe - then I would conclude that a toroidal magnetic field is balanced - yet there is a charged property to each part of each string/field - yet the entire field is neutral. It is how matter is positioned to the field that determines what 'charge' it feels - relative to matter's own charge. So. As spatial position is the 'thing' that determines the justification or 'bias' of a field, then when it comes to a magnetic field - it's simply a matter of perspective - like GB says.
In any event that's how I see it.
Regards,
Rosemary
PS
Now. Let's assume that Airstriker's apple is floating around in bits and pieces - and each bit has a predominant 'up' 'south' or 'off' justification or bias or charge. The bits come into the general area of that free floating disassocated field of magnetic dipoles - little spherical magnets. Then. Those little pieces would move towards the 'down' of the entire field. That 'down' or 'north' charge of the field would incline all those little apple bits to move to the centre of that field. And then they'd settle there. Something like that.
But. All that depends on whether those lines of force actually comprise a material body - in the first instance. But if they did - then it would explain an awful lot.
Well, if we are to believe that the field actually rotates with a magnet rotating on it's axis, then we must consider the following condition.
In the rendering, there are two magnets rotating in opposite directions. As you can see, as the conductor cuts the field lines twice, they would however be rotating in opposite directions. This would induce a continuous DC flow through the conductor. Not only that, but the conductor could be looped many times increasing the voltage to a usable level and there would be no reaction between magnets or the conductor.
This would surly indicate that the field does not actually rotate with the magnet, but is instead free to always take the path of least work.
Hi
According to this principle, it is possible to build a Homopolar AC Generator? Magnets and disk are coupled together and run ...
Hi
Does anyone have news, information, 'AC homopolar generator made by Peter Lindemann and Michael Knox?
Quote from: lumen on September 27, 2010, 04:40:07 PM
Well, if we are to believe that the field actually rotates with a magnet rotating on it's axis, then we must consider the following condition.
In the rendering, there are two magnets rotating in opposite directions. As you can see, as the conductor cuts the field lines twice, they would however be rotating in opposite directions. This would induce a continuous DC flow through the conductor. Not only that, but the conductor could be looped many times increasing the voltage to a usable level and there would be no reaction between magnets or the conductor.
This would surly indicate that the field does not actually rotate with the magnet, but is instead free to always take the path of least work.
This will not work lumen and will prove nothing. The field on these two discs is always uniform and as can be seen on your second picture always the same number of field lines passes through the conductor. When you rotate the discs this number will not change so you will not get any voltage induced. All this proves is... if you don't have any disturbances in the magnetic field, the field lines will create a sort of shell (the earlier said apple). Each field line will "stick" to it's neighbour field line. So the external observer will not see any change if this shell (apple) rotates. However the field will indeed rotate with the mganet - we just cannot see it.
Quote from: Airstriker on October 06, 2010, 06:37:43 PM
This will not work lumen and will prove nothing. The field on these two discs is always uniform and as can be seen on your second picture always the same number of field lines passes through the conductor. When you rotate the discs this number will not change so you will not get any voltage induced. All this proves is... if you don't have any disturbances in the magnetic field, the field lines will create a sort of shell (the earlier said apple). Each field line will "stick" to it's neighbour field line. So the external observer will not see any change if this shell (apple) rotates. However the field will indeed rotate with the mganet - we just cannot see it.
Airstriker,
Of course it does not work. In both the conditions where one must consider the field stationary in space, and the condition of the field rotating with the magnet, it is possible to build a DC generator without a brush contact.
The problem is the field is not stationary in space and it does not rotate with the magnet.
The setup I have shown does prove the field cannot rotate with the magnet because the magnets coud be rotated in either direction to cause a current flow in a uniform direction through the conductor, but no current will flow. The same number of field lines is irrelevant because it is shown to work in the standard Faraday generator.
The fact is, the field lines in a uniform field generator, are free to move or stay stationary or any combination that requires them to do the least amount of work. They must be trapped between two conductors and forced to cross one or the other to induce a current flow through the conductors.
If the are not trapped, they simply rotate or stay stationary, whichever is required to cause no current flow.
Hi
Another AC version with conductive strip ...
Hi
Question: self induction may support rotation?
I invented a new type of Homopolar over on the "One magnet no bearing Bedini thread". I squeezed a diametric neo inside a copper jacket, and generated voltage through the non magnetic conducting stainless steel axle. The copper plug covered diametric neo on a Mag Lev axle with contacts on each sharpened end would deliver power. I believe the copper curves through the stationary portion of the field.
Quote from: synchro1 on October 07, 2010, 01:09:24 PM
I invented a new type of Homopolar over on the "One magnet no bearing Bedini thread". I squeezed a diametric neo inside a copper jacket, and generated voltage through the non magnetic conducting stainless steel axle. The copper plug covered diametric neo on a Mag Lev axle with contacts on each sharpened end would deliver power. I believe the copper curves through the stationary portion of the field.
@ Synchro1
I'd like to better understand the operating principle, you can see a diagram, a drawing? Meanwhile, I read the discussion I've suggested.
Hypercom.
The ring magnet is magnetized radially or diametrically. The original Faraday spins the copper disc in flat against the axially polarized magnet. This diametric turns the copper face 90 degrees and forms a colar. The axle is attached to the inside hole of the ring, and the power output is available at the axle ends, positive and negative.
I have here a diametrically polarized 1" neo ring, with a copper tube around it, and a stainless steel axle running through the middle. This is rotated by a solenoid Bedini pulse coil. This is simple enough to imagine. Unlike the classic Faraday, the power is greater through the axle then between the rim of the copper and the axle. This is a great advantage. I just tried it out and found that it works this way. It's real easy it understand why. It's also very easy to replicate. Think about it. Try and turn it around in your mind, picture the framework and the relationships.
@Synchro1
I got an idea, but I do not understand what does the steel with copper, steel is only a stand or part of the electrical circuit? This is a draft, graphic design helps much more than translations ...
Regards. Hypercom.
Quote from: synchro1 on October 07, 2010, 04:50:30 PM
The ring magnet is magnetized radially or diametrically. The original Faraday spins the copper disc in flat against the axially polarized magnet. This diametric turns the copper face 90 degrees and forms a colar. The axle is attached to the inside hole of the ring, and the power output is available at the axle ends, positive and negative.
I have here a diametrically polarized 1" neo ring, with a copper tube around it, and a stainless steel axle running through the middle. This is rotated by a solenoid Bedini pulse coil. This is simple enough to imagine. Unlike the classic Faraday, the power is greater through the axle then between the rim of the copper and the axle. This is a great advantage. I just tried it out and found that it works this way. It's real easy it understand why. It's also very easy to replicate. Think about it. Try and turn it around in your mind, picture the framework and the relationships.
Hello Synchro1. Regarding this statement.
'I just tried it out and found that it works this way.' Can you give us either a schematic or a photo? I'm not sure that I'm following it. Or is Hypercom's schematic correct?
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's a photograph of the spinner. This one's coated with epoxy, in place of the copper tube. This is just a 1" neo tube. The non magnetic 1/4" stainless steel axel must make contact with the magnet. There're just three pieces to this Homopolar. Current can be drawn from the axel ends due to some unknown polarization influence. Even though the magnet's spinning, the copper tube curves through a portion of the stationary circuit field. This generates a current that is drawn to the axel ground. The angle of attack and entrance to the field are different from the copper disk and axially polarized magnet that Faraday invented and Bruce DePalma tested. That version would have a copper disk attached to the axially polarized tube where the orange plastic disk is positioned below, instead of a copper jacket around the diametriclly polarized one. The other difference is that the voltage potential develops between the ridge of the copper disk and the axel in the classic Faraday Homopolar, and not between the seperate ends of the axel as in this diametric version. A graphic by Hypercom on how the copper tube intersects the "B" field would be interesting.
Two double wires are visible at the bottem of the bifilar Spiral Knot. A standard SSG Bedini wil spin this 1" neo up to 35,000 r.p.m.
Hi synchro1
If you want to share your invention you need more information, so it is difficult to understand the principle of operation ...
What is a colar? The translator can not give a definition ...
Regards. Hypercom.
I mispelled collar. The theory of operation involves the stationary portion of the spinning magnet's field. This has been the central topic of this Faraday Paradox thread.
Hi
Quadrupole AC version with 4 independent drive shafts.
@ Synchro1
This pattern may be a starting point to describe the operating principles of your prototype.
I'm not sure if the torus uses only two-wire coils. I think that AC is a configuration may also eliminate the brushes and use electromagnetic induction.
Hypercom.
@Hypercom,
You portray a disc magnet, not a tube. The tube is 1" long and 1" thick. The tube has a copper jacket around it, and a stainless steel axel through the hole in the middle. Now, That's the only three parts in this generator. It can run by hampster wheel, or wind etc. There's no need for it to be inside a toroid. The axel can ride on electrodes, if driven by a pulse coil. You could drive it from the sink with a Tesla turbine attached. Still the same three parts in this generator, any way you look at it. The only thing that's correct in the schematic is the magnetic polarization of the disk, and the axel. Diametric and thru axel.
Spinning the copper tube with the magnet generates current as if the copper tube were spinning around the magnet. Just like the Faraday that has a copper disk spinning along side an axially polarized magnet disk. Both these copper attachments generate current from passsing through the stationary portion of the spinning magnet's fields, except from different directions. I think it's the different direction, between the North and South Bloch wall that causes the current to polarize at the axel ends.
some idea
AN EXPERIMENTAL DISPROOF OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY (Unipolar Induction)
by Francisco J. Müller
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/muller.htm
@ Synchro1
If the configuration of this rotor is correct, as was done by measuring the voltage M1 or M2, measurements were made in DCV or ACV as shown in the picture?
Quote from: wings on October 11, 2010, 03:02:02 AM
some idea
AN EXPERIMENTAL DISPROOF OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY (Unipolar Induction)
by Francisco J. Müller
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/muller.htm
@wings
Interesting document, thanks.
I fully share the need for a new physics ...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
@Hypercom,
Your last schematic was nearly perfect. Good job, but the axel needs to travel through the magnet hole. Just a tiny detail. It generates a steady D.C. current accross the axel. I measured a steady .1, or one tenth of a volt D.C. with a 1" neo spinning slowly, around 1 or 2 thousand r.p.m. That kind of low voltage is usually accompanied by a large amount of amperage in the other homopolars. The copper jacket does not weaken the field. Resting on two bent leaf spring copper electrodes, one on each end for friction bearings, an SSG pulse coil would drive it to top speed. The leaf spring electrodes of course would generate a steady D.C. current.
That Spiral Knot bifilar is an invention of mine that I maintain is an advance over the Rodin design. The Spiral Knot has two poles on the inner rim of the toroid, and the poles are rotating in the direction of the spiraling current. So the Knot produces a rotating bi-polar magnetic field, with no angles or spaces in the wire. This coil is many times more powerful than a solenoid air core. Just power source of choice, and in no way a part of the homopolar generator. I use it to drive a rotating sphere in my "Moby Maggie", over on Jonnydavro's "no bearing Bedini" thread at Energetic Forum. I leave instructions over there on how to build one if you choose to try.
I noticed Magluvin proposed an invention nearly identical to mine over on the N-machine Depalma thread. I didin't invent this, I just stumbled accross it fooling around. It's too easy to build and test oneself rather then venture into endless speculation.
Skycollection proves the existence of eddy currents in copper covered diametric tube spinner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZu4TjeNTM&videos=Ia6h2blLkH4
@Gravityblock
QuoteHere's an experiment proving the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7o7Q7PraY
I mean no offense but your experiment is flawed on so many levels it defies description, first the magnet faces are not parallel this is obvious, next there are always field variations due to changes in magnetic density which I have proven time and time again in my levitation experiments(no strings). In fact I have several precision devices which operate solely due to the fact that the magnetic field cannot rotate, that is if the field rotates then the device cannot work, but it does work. I hope I do not sound too harsh but I think you know as well as I do that throwing together a couple magnets on some string in your living room is bad science, I have tried throwing things together in a hurry many times in the past and I always got what I deserved ---- bad inconsistent results.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on November 22, 2010, 12:14:27 PM
@Gravityblock
I mean no offense but your experiment is flawed on so many levels it defies description, first the magnet faces are not parallel this is obvious, next there are always field variations due to changes in magnetic density which I have proven time and time again in my levitation experiments(no strings). In fact I have several precision devices which operate solely due to the fact that the magnetic field cannot rotate, that is if the field rotates then the device cannot work, but it does work. I hope I do not sound too harsh but I think you know as well as I do that throwing together a couple magnets on some string in your living room is bad science, I have tried throwing things together in a hurry many times in the past and I always got what I deserved ---- bad inconsistent results.
Regards
AC
Do you think the magnet faces were parallel in the original experiment of this thread, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 ? He was rotating the top magnet by a hand drill manually (you can even see the rotating magnet moving all over the place due to his unstable hand motions), so the magnet faces were obviously not parallel. Neither this nor the field variations due to changes in magnetic density ever induced the other magnet to rotate in the original experiment, which makes your arguments mute for my experiments. If my experiment is flawed, then so is the original experiment of this thread along with other reasons which I have already given. Since what you said was flawed in my experiments also existed, but never manifested or induced a rotation in the original experiment, then those same arguments can't hold for my experiment. This means your thinking is flawed on so many levels that it defies description, and not my experiment. I did not hurry to throw my experiment together. It was you, who hurried to pass judgement. I ran several tests to rule out the things you mentioned. I even ruled out eddy currents.
Another person confirmed there is a small tension in the field lines when gently trying to rotate the magnet. I can do an experiment with two diametrically magnetized magnets, where rotating one magnet above the other will not induce rotation in the other magnet, just by giving the stationary magnet a huge mass, or other force to keep it from rotating. If I did this experiment, would you conclude the field doesn't rotate with the magnets in this configuration? Of course not, so why would you automaticly conclude that the field is able to overcome the mass of the magnets, the mass of the rotor, along with overcoming the friction of the bearings with two axially magnetised magnets without doing an experiment to rule this out? This was the purpose of my experiment.
GB
I think someone could eliminate all problems with testing two copper coils on a shaft build with slipping rings and powered by quite large current. Then rotate on of them. Of course that would require lab testing.
Quote from: wings on October 11, 2010, 03:02:02 AM
some idea
AN EXPERIMENTAL DISPROOF OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY (Unipolar Induction)
by Francisco J. Müller
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/muller.htm
There is no disproof of special relativity here.
Referring to the first case (case A, rotational disk): Müller forgot that a fixed circuit is required in order a current to appear. Then there is a relative motion between 2 parts of a circuit: the rotating disk and the fixed external circuit closing the loop.
From the referential of the fixed circuit, electrons of the disk are viewed traveling in a magnetic field. Thus the Lorentz force F=q*v.B applies, and the electrons of the disk moves radially, creating a current in the external circuit.
This author doesn't apply correctly SR: he doesn't understand that
in Lorentz force F=q*v.B, v is the charge speed relative to the observer and not relative to the field or it's source (a field can't be a referential). In our case, the "observer" will be the fixed circuit with an ammeter showing us current.
Obviously this moron doesn't understand relativity, he is not even aware of the now banality why there is no paradox in Faraday disk and why Lorentz and SR are both correct and perfectly explain the functioning. He provides claptrap and disinformation.
@All,
Below is an axially magnetized magnet showing only one pole. This magnet has a small piece of it cut out represented by the white line running radially from the center of the magnet to the outer edge. There is an inverted field where this white line is. When this magnet is rotated to a position where the white line is at the 12 o'clock position, will the inverted field move to the 12 o'clock position or will it remain stationary in it's current position as shown in the image? Of course the inverted field will move to the 12 o'clock position with the magnet, and this also means the large unchanging field (represented by red in the image) moved with the magnet also during this rotation. Unchanging means the field is not changing in direction over time, the field is not changing in strength or density over time, but it doesn't mean the field is not changing in space or position over time.
Allcanadian claims there is always field variations due to changes in magnetic density. If these field variations rotate with the magnet, which can induce rotation in my experiments and make it flawed, how can the rest of the field with a different magnetic density, not rotate with the magnet? How can the small portions with changes or variations in magnetic density rotate with the magnet, but the large portions with a different magnetic density as compared to the small portions not rotate with the magnet. This is total nonsense. If the field does not rotate with the magnet, then the changes in magnetic density won't rotate with the magnet either........but it does, so the other portions of the field must rotate also.
As you can see there is a Paradox in allcanadian's thinking. The arguments he is trying to use to disprove my experiment, actually shows the field does rotate with the magnet. LOL
GB
Hi all ....I'm not sure I undrstand,......but are you trying to say the lines of force stay in a fixed position between rotating mags,....or do the lines of force circulate with rotation??.....shylo
@Gravityblock
Please do not lower yourself to personal insults to try to make your point I would hope we are all better than that here.
QuoteAllcanadian claims there is always field variations due to changes in magnetic density. If these field variations rotate with the magnet, which can induce rotation in my experiments and make it flawed, how can the rest of the field with a different magnetic density, not rotate with the magnet?
Your correct and this point should be clarified, a uniform magnetic field gradient cannot induce rotation in another uniform magnetic field gradient. If we move the magnets apart such that the fields still interact but are near uniform fields then there is no differences between them and no rotation results.
QuoteHow can the small portions with changes or variations in magnetic density rotate with the magnet, but the large portions with a different magnetic density as compared to the small portions not rotate with the magnet.
We could use some analogies here, if a piston under pressure in a cylinder was rotated then would the internal "pressure", a force, rotate with the piston? A scalar magnetic field gradient is a point in space which has magnitude(force) but no direction(a scalar) and the force changes with distance from the source(a gradient). In some respects we could compare the field to a pressurized gas with no friction in which case any difference of force must be a function of pressure. Now if we have one region of the gas at one pressure it may act on any other region at a different pressure but no two regions at the same pressure can act on one another because they are the same.
QuoteIf the field does not rotate with the magnet, then the changes in magnetic density won't rotate with the magnet either........but it does, so the other portions of the field must rotate also.
Here is an experiment, take two large magnets in attraction a distance apart and place a smaller magnet off center on each of the larger magnetic poles. Now if one magnet is rotated in close proximity to the other we have a "magnetic coupler" of sorts as the smaller magnets project there field differences and act on each other within the larger field gradient. If we increase the distance you will find the force rotating the second large magnet decreases as the fields become more uniform. If you keep the initial distance the same and remove the smaller magnets the force of rotation will disappear as the fields are now uniform. From this we could say the more uniform the fields the less interaction they will have on the axial plane of rotation and if they were perfectly uniform there can be no rotation.
Here is what I did, I placed a magnet in a sealed chamber which was laser levelled with the ground plane of the earth. This magnet was "Levitated" so that it was now one inch from the non-magnetic walls of the chamber in all directions with no frictional forces of any kind, it was free floating in a sealed space. Next I placed another magnet below it on precision bearings which was laser levelled on all axis with the magnet in the chamber and the apparatus was monitored for stability. Then the lower magnet was rotated and there was a slight rotation but if the distance was increased the rotation decreased as the field became more uniform. It should be obvious that a free floating magnet must rotate under any force no matter how small and it was found that the fields could still interact or have an attraction but not effect the other by causing a rotation. I also found in every case that if the lower magnet was tilted off angle by even 1/100 of a degree that the magnet in the chamber would rotate due to differences in the internal material density(mass). This material density translates into a change in field density which can be measured by properly biased hall effect sensor arrays, this differential field density will cause rotation. In fact I could stand four feet away from the apparatus with a magnet in my hand and tilt the magnet in the chamber which resulted in a slight rotation due to the magnets internal imbalance. I will concede I could be wrong and I think we all should do the same however I have done more than a few time consuming and costly experiments which have given me certain facts that tell me the magnetic field does not rotate, that is my opinion.
Regards
AC
Quote from: shylo on November 23, 2010, 07:03:46 PM
Hi all ....I'm not sure I undrstand,......but are you trying to say the lines of force stay in a fixed position between rotating mags,....or do the lines of force circulate with rotation??.....shylo
When both mags are rotating at the same speed and direction, then the lines of force between the rotating mags will circulate in unison, as if they were a single magnet without any distance seperating them. If the mags are rotating at different speeds or different directions, then the field lines will continiously break and connect with each other giving the appearance that the field isn't rotating due to the tiny torque involved during the break/connect interactions. The field lines will break/connect also in the case of having two diametrically magnetised magnets rotating at different speed or directions, and it is also true for the axially magnetised magnets as well. The torque is much higher with two diametrically magnetized magnets when the field lines break/connect with each other than with two axially magnetized magnets. The lines of force are firmly seated on the magnet.
GB
@Gravityblock
QuoteThe lines of force will circulate between rotating mags if both mags are rotating at the same speed and direction. If the mags are rotating at different speeds or different directions, then the field lines will continiously break and connect with each other. The field lines will break/connect also in the case of having two diametrically magnetised magnets rotating at different speed or directions, and it is also true for the axially magnetised magnets as well.
I would disagree, in physics it is well known that these lines of force are imaginary and used only as a form of notation. That is they do not exist in reality and are simply a magnetic phenomena which misled many people in the past. Here is an experiment, take two iron rods and place them under a magnetic north pole and you will find a south pole is induced in each rod thus they repel one another. Next move one rod downward in relation to the other and you will find at some point they will attract thus we see the real reason why the iron filing experiment has misled so many people. The lines of supposed force depicted by the iron filings experiment are not real lines of force they are a simple magnetic phenomena associated with the iron filings themselves. That is the forces of attraction and repulsion tend to form lines in ferromagnetic materials due to the nature of the material and not the source of the field.
In physics the magnetic field is known as a scalar field gradient which has a magnitude at any given point, a force, but no direction intrinsic to each point. If you look at it like water pressure I think it will make much more sense, water pressure is a gradient intrinsic to each point in the gradient and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on November 23, 2010, 07:22:13 PM
@Gravityblock
Please do not lower yourself to personal insults to try to make your point I would hope we are all better than that here.
Regards
AC
You don't think your statement that my "experiment
is flawed on so many levels it defies description", along with saying I was careless and threw my experiment together in a hurry was a personal attact? My thoughts went into that experiment, and by saying the experiment was flawed on so many levels it defies description, is in no way any different than saying my thoughts are flawed on so many levels that it defies description.
What I said in my posts was in no way any more of a personal attack than what was contained in your post. Criticize my experiment, but don't criticize my intelligence directly or indirectly. The funny thing is, the arguments you mentioned were already brought up in the discussion after the experiment, and I was even fully aware of those issues prior to my experiment..... but you had to throw those issues up into my face again in order to try and prove your point, which you weren't successful in doing.
GB
Quote from: allcanadian on November 23, 2010, 08:11:44 PM
@Gravityblock
I would disagree, in physics it is well known that these lines of force are imaginary and used only as a form of notation. That is they do not exist in reality and are simply a magnetic phenomena which misled many people in the past. Here is an experiment, take two iron rods and place them under a magnetic north pole and you will find a south pole is induced in each rod thus they repel one another. Next move one rod downward in relation to the other and you will find at some point they will attract thus we see the real reason why the iron filing experiment has misled so many people. The lines of supposed force depicted by the iron filings experiment are not real lines of force they are a simple magnetic phenomena associated with the iron filings themselves. That is the forces of attraction and repulsion tend to form lines in ferromagnetic materials due to the nature of the material and not the source of the field.
In physics the magnetic field is known as a scalar field gradient which has a magnitude at any given point, a force, but no direction intrinsic to each point. If you look at it like water pressure I think it will make much more sense, water pressure is a gradient intrinsic to each point in the gradient and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC
How convenient for you to say the lines of force are imaginary. If you want to go this route with what is real and imaginary, then don't half ass it. If this is the case, then we can also say that neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what we call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.
An electron is an intergration of electromagnetic waves. We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form. Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiralling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.
The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.
Is the photon a wave or a particle? Is the electron a wave or a particle? Is the electron and photon real or imaginary? Matter does not exist in reality and is simply a phenomenon of space being deformed. Energy does not exist in reality and is simply a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on November 23, 2010, 07:36:42 PM
When both mags are rotating at the same speed and direction, then the lines of force between the rotating mags will circulate in unison, as if they were a single magnet without any distance seperating them. If the mags are rotating at different speeds or different directions, then the field lines will continiously break and connect with each other giving the appearance that the field isn't rotating due to the tiny torque involved during the break/connect interactions. The field lines will break/connect also in the case of having two diametrically magnetised magnets rotating at different speed or directions, and it is also true for the axially magnetised magnets as well. The torque is much higher with two diametrically magnetized magnets when the field lines break/connect with each other than with two axially magnetized magnets. The lines of force are firmly seated on the magnet.
GB
I substituted the imaginary "lines of force" with "magnetic field" in order to make things real for my "imaginary friend".
When both mags are rotating at the same speed and direction, then the magnetic field between the rotating mags will circulate in unison, as if they were a single magnet without any distance seperating them. If the mags are rotating at different speeds or different directions, then the magnetic field will continiously break and connect with each other giving the appearance that the magnetic field isn't rotating due to the tiny torque involved during the break/connect interactions. The magnetic field will break/connect also in the case of having two diametrically magnetised magnets rotating at different speed or directions, and it is also true for the axially magnetised magnets as well. The torque is much higher with two diametrically magnetized magnets when the magnetic field break/connect with each other than with two axially magnetized magnets. The magnetic field is firmly seated on the magnet.
Wow, just changing a few words can make something real, and without changing it's meaning. Absolutely amazing.
GB
@Gravityblock
I did not mean to offend you and I did not mean to attack you personally and if I did then I am sorry, I did however intend to criticize the validity of your experiment. I hope you can understand my point, I only ask that you consider the experiments that I have performed and outlined in my second last post in relation to the one you posted on youtube. You can then decide which experiments you believe would give a more accurate result, Im not here to offend you or tell you what to believe I am just stating what I know as fact, that is my opinion.
As well what I have stated as my opinion in regards to magnetic fields is based on the work of Ampere,Faraday,Maxwell,Tesla,Einstein,Feynman and others who have stated that there are no lines of force in reality. Ampere and Maxwell went so far as to state that the magnetic field should be considered as completely independent of the source magnet however any external force applied to the field must translate back to that source. My experiments were simply a continuation of this concept as well as the Faraday Paradox and I personally found that the magnetic field does not rotate.
I would also like to make the point that your difference of opinion with mine is not a bad thing in any way and the more people who are willing to openly debate the issues and question the validity of things the better. I can only hope that my posts may raise enough curiosity in people that they do the experiments for themselves to prove the matter for themselves as that is the only way real progress is made.
Regards
AC
When you put a train on circular track with a circumference of the train's length. And install speakers on each wagon which all emit the same sound and turn them on. If you close your eyes you won't tell if the train is moving or not. From the outside this looks like a static phenomena just due to the superposition fact. But when you are on the wagon you clearly see the sound waves being emitted by each speaker separately and they are clearly moving with the source. Because if the train was on a straight track the sound would increase when as the train passes and fade out when it goes farther into the distance.
Just because it looks "stationary" doesn't mean it is. Yes we can say it has the same effect on our ear as if it were stationary but we can't conclude from that that it actually is stationary. I think this has a fancy mathematical name, paradoxical deduction?
Quote from: allcanadian on November 24, 2010, 01:18:30 AM
@Gravityblock
I did not mean to offend you and I did not mean to attack you personally and if I did then I am sorry, I did however intend to criticize the validity of your experiment. I hope you can understand my point, I only ask that you consider the experiments that I have performed and outlined in my second last post in relation to the one you posted on youtube. You can then decide which experiments you believe would give a more accurate result, Im not here to offend you or tell you what to believe I am just stating what I know as fact, that is my opinion.
As well what I have stated as my opinion in regards to magnetic fields is based on the work of Ampere,Faraday,Maxwell,Tesla,Einstein,Feynman and others who have stated that there are no lines of force in reality. Ampere and Maxwell went so far as to state that the magnetic field should be considered as completely independent of the source magnet however any external force applied to the field must translate back to that source. My experiments were simply a continuation of this concept as well as the Faraday Paradox and I personally found that the magnetic field does not rotate.
I would also like to make the point that your difference of opinion with mine is not a bad thing in any way and the more people who are willing to openly debate the issues and question the validity of things the better. I can only hope that my posts may raise enough curiosity in people that they do the experiments for themselves to prove the matter for themselves as that is the only way real progress is made.
Regards
AC
You're still trying to prove to me that there are no lines of force in reality, even after I corrected that issue just to satisfy you. In reality Shylo used that term, so I used the same term that I knew he was familiar with. As far as I am concerned, I don't care if someone uses, "lines of force", "tubes of force", "magnetic field", "field lines", "field", "B-field", etc. If my memory serves me correctly, then I believe some of the people highlighted in bold above used the terms "tubes of force" or "lines of force". I know what the hell they are talking about regardless of which words they choose to convey their thoughts with. One phrase doesn't make it anymore or anyless of a reality than any of the other phrases. You started your first post to me with, "I mean no offense but.......", and now you want to apologize. LOL. I would accept your apology if I knew you were sincere and it wasn't done intentionally, but I just don't see how you could be sincere when you knew I would be offended to begin with.
GB
Faraday waves.
Though 2d this can easily be converted to 3d (spherical),,
"Couder’s group reports its most startling discovery. If the vibrating fluid bath is also rotating, a walking droplet will lock into an orbit determined by the troughs of its wave. The notion that a subatomic particle has only a few allowed orbital states is called “quantization,†the very phenomenon that gives quantum mechanics its name."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-fluid-dynamics-insights-quantum-mechanics.html
On this you tube you can see a stable hole, which took energy to create,
Think of quantum foam for the cornstarch. A wave set , stationary in the Dirac sea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVkjP5d6ulc
Magnetism is a pseudo force of moving charge.
Imagine a electron (a charge carrier, but not a charge btw) passing you, it forms a magnetic field,
But if you could run along/beside the electron, ? No magnetic field.
Btw , magnetic fields are “disconnected†from magnets. The distortion in in space/time and frame
Like dragging a stick through mud perhaps..
Cliff,
Quote from: allcanadian on November 23, 2010, 08:11:44 PM
@Gravityblock
I would disagree, in physics it is well known that these lines of force are imaginary and used only as a form of notation. That is they do not exist in reality and are simply a magnetic phenomena which misled many people in the past. Here is an experiment, take two iron rods and place them under a magnetic north pole and you will find a south pole is induced in each rod thus they repel one another. Next move one rod downward in relation to the other and you will find at some point they will attract thus we see the real reason why the iron filing experiment has misled so many people. The lines of supposed force depicted by the iron filings experiment are not real lines of force they are a simple magnetic phenomena associated with the iron filings themselves. That is the forces of attraction and repulsion tend to form lines in ferromagnetic materials due to the nature of the material and not the source of the field.
In physics the magnetic field is known as a scalar field gradient which has a magnitude at any given point, a force, but no direction intrinsic to each point. If you look at it like water pressure I think it will make much more sense, water pressure is a gradient intrinsic to each point in the gradient and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC
The iron filing experiment is showing the effects of the H-Field and not the B-Field. So what's your point? The B-Field isn't real because the phenomena is associated with the iron filings themselves? Just because the phenomena is associated with the iron filings themselves, doesn't make the H-Field, B-Field, lines of force, or whatever the **** anymore or anyless real. LOL
GB
Quote from: broli on November 24, 2010, 01:52:28 AM
When you put a train on circular track with a circumference of the train's length. And install speakers on each wagon which all emit the same sound and turn them on. If you close your eyes you won't tell if the train is moving or not. From the outside this looks like a static phenomena just due to the superposition fact. But when you are on the wagon you clearly see the sound waves being emitted by each speaker separately and they are clearly moving with the source. Because if the train was on a straight track the sound would increase when as the train passes and fade out when it goes farther into the distance.
Just because it looks "stationary" doesn't mean it is. Yes we can say it has the same effect on our ear as if it were stationary but we can't conclude from that that it actually is stationary. I think this has a fancy mathematical name, paradoxical deduction?
I agree. Well said.
GB
@allcanadian,
Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet does not have distinct north or south particles on opposing sides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Two_models_for_magnets:_magnetic_poles_and_atomic_currents
As you can see, there is no such thing as North and South poles in reality either, just like there is no such thing as "lines of force" in reality. How can we say that a north pole will attract a south pole, if the north and south poles do not exist in reality. Does this mean there is no attraction because the north or south poles aren't real? Of course not.
GB
@Gravityblock
I will post a video of how I believe the experiment must be performed as I had outlined prior then when there is no rotation the people here can decide for themselves who really knows what and what the real facts of this matter are.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on November 23, 2010, 07:22:13 PM
@Gravityblock
Here is what I did, I placed a magnet in a sealed chamber which was laser levelled with the ground plane of the earth. This magnet was "Levitated" so that it was now one inch from the non-magnetic walls of the chamber in all directions with no frictional forces of any kind, it was free floating in a sealed space. Next I placed another magnet below it on precision bearings which was laser levelled on all axis with the magnet in the chamber and the apparatus was monitored for stability. Then the lower magnet was rotated and there was a slight rotation but if the distance was increased the rotation decreased as the field became more uniform. It should be obvious that a free floating magnet must rotate under any force no matter how small and it was found that the fields could still interact or have an attraction but not effect the other by causing a rotation. I also found in every case that if the lower magnet was tilted off angle by even 1/100 of a degree that the magnet in the chamber would rotate due to differences in the internal material density(mass). This material density translates into a change in field density which can be measured by properly biased hall effect sensor arrays, this differential field density will cause rotation. In fact I could stand four feet away from the apparatus with a magnet in my hand and tilt the magnet in the chamber which resulted in a slight rotation due to the magnets internal imbalance. I will concede I could be wrong and I think we all should do the same however I have done more than a few time consuming and costly experiments which have given me certain facts that tell me the magnetic field does not rotate, that is my opinion.
Regards
AC
Even in allcanadian's perfect experiment, a rotation was observed. He attributes this to non-uniformities. Like I said before, if the non-uniformities are rotating, then so are the portions which are uniform. To think otherwise is total nonsense. An actual change in density allows one to see that the field is rotating.
GB
Quote from: allcanadian on November 24, 2010, 11:23:14 AM
@Gravityblock
I will post a video of how I believe the experiment must be performed as I had outlined prior then when there is no rotation the people here can decide for themselves who really knows what and what the real facts of this matter are.
Regards
AC
You have already said there was rotation in your experiment, and this rotation decreased as the distance between the magnets is increased. Now your going to take a video showing no rotation at further distances. LOL
I can feel a small tension between two magnets in my experiments when trying to gently and slowly rotate one. Another person even confirmed this. Of course this tension is going to decrease as the distance between the magnets are increased.
GB
@Gravityblock
QuoteYou have already said there was rotation in your experiment, and this rotation decreased as the distance between the magnets is increased. Now your going to take a video showing no rotation at further distances. LOL
I can feel a small tension between two magnets in my experiments when trying to gently and slowly rotate one. Another person even confirmed this. Of course this tension is going to decrease as the distance between the magnets are increased.
Everyone will have the facts soon enough and I am sorry to say you will not be pleased with my results.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on November 24, 2010, 05:51:24 PM
@Gravityblock
Everyone will have the facts soon enough and I am sorry to say you will not be pleased with my results.
AC
I'm interested in the truth, whatever that may be. I do have concerns of you fudging the results, since you have already stated there was rotation in your previous experiment and this new similiar experiment you're predicting no rotation. That doesn't add up in my book.
Anyways, let's assume for the moment there is no rotation. A magnet not being induced to rotate by another magnet doesn't prove the field remains stationary. The field of the second magnet could always change the results, such as a cancellation of forces leading to no net rotation or cause the field of the stationary magnet to detach while the field of the rotating magnet stays firmly seated on the magnet, similiar to the double-slit experiment when any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a photon passes through destroys the interference pattern and changes the experimental results.
Can you also do the experiment with opposing magnets to rule out any cancellations leading to no net rotation between two magnets in attraction mode? This is the proper way to perform the experiments, and I think you will agree. If you are successful in showing there is no rotation, then I hope you are prepared in proving the experiment itself isn't a factor in the results. I have a number of other concerns as well, which would need to be ruled out also. Don't half-ass your experiments like I did.
[Edit:] After more thought, I'm not sure if the opposing magnet experiment is a good test to determine if there is a cancellation of forces or not, resulting in no net rotation.
GB
Quote from: argona369 on November 24, 2010, 02:24:59 AM
Btw , magnetic fields are “disconnected†from magnets. The distortion in in space/time and frame
Like dragging a stick through mud perhaps..
Cliff,
One experiment may say the fields are disconnected from the magnets, while another experiment may say the field is connected or attached to the magnets. The experiment itself can change the results, just like in the double-slit experiment.
Below is a quote from a publication done by Jorge Guala-Valverde and Pedro Mazzoni related to experiments with a Confined B-Field Homopolar Dynamotor, http://www.scribd.com/doc/36755129/B-Field-Confinement
QuoteA few words on the (in archaic language) “rotatingâ€/“fixed†field lines controversy can be said in the light of our experiments. For open configurations all happens as if B lines rotate anchored to the magnet, whereas the above lines appear to be attached to the whole magnetized bulk when dealing with confined arrangements.
Below is a quote found in the Conclusions of the paper titled Farraday's Final Riddle, http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043991/Faraday-s-Final-Riddle
QuoteThe lines of force rotate with a magnet upon its North-South axis. The emf, that is produced in a nearby circuit by a magnet, is caused by the cutting of the circuit by the lines of force of that magnet. It is not produced unless there is cutting of the circuit by those lines of force; additionally the cutting must be in one direction (net), or be by unequal force lines, if cut in two directions (net).
The Faraday Generator phenomenon is caused by the cutting of the stationary circuit by the lines of force of the magnet, as the magnet rotates. It has previously been supposed that the magnet is cutting its own lines of force.
When a disc is set rotating near the pole of the magnet, the results are anomalous. The results are fully explained as being due to involvement of only a portion of the whole circuit. 'Faraday's Law' of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. One single general rule is missing. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule.
Below is a quote from a publication, titled Paradox 2, by Robert Distinti, http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/paradox2.pdf
QuoteProponents of the rotating field suggest that energy is developed as the field is “cut†by the stationary closing path while others propose that the energy is developed in the disk which means that the field can not be rotating. New Electromagnetism (Specifically New Magnetism) teaches that the above question is moot since the field does rotate; however, no energy is developed in the closing path. This sounds like a contradictory statement to classically trained scientists and engineers; however, the Paradox 2 experiment clearly shows that power can be developed without cutting flux lines
GB
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition states;
"If you take one electret and one magnet you will get a surprise. When not in motion, these two differing objects will have no effect on one another. It is only when you move them that anything happens ... and ... it is not the familiar attraction-repulsion. When a pole of the magnet is in relative motion to a "pole" of the electret they push each other at 90 degrees to the direction of motion. The effect is entirely odd and immediately unfamiliar (unless you are a physics student)."
I would like to propose two experiments, by using an electret and a magnet to test the Faraday Paradox.
1) Rotating magnet with attached rotating electret. If the field remains stationary, then the electret will be displaced. This is a little tricky, because the electret will need to rotate with the magnet, but also must be able to be displaced.
2) Rotating magnet with a stationary electret. If the field rotates, then the electret will be displaced.
Hopefully experiment 2 won't contradict experiment 1. If the electret isn't displaced in neither test, then the electret will need a changing magnetic field in order to be induced, which means both tests will need to be thrown out (Before throwing out the tests, an opposite direction of rotation or a reversal of the magnetic pole should be done). It may be tempting to perform test 2 first, since it's an easier test. I don't think this is the best order to perform the tests in though. If the electret isn't displaced in test 2, then it may be assumed that the magnetic field remains stationary instead of needing to have a changing field, which both tests need to be performed before coming to this conclusion.
What do you guys think? Do you have any concerns with this method of testing or suggestions in overcoming the displacement problem in experiment 1?
Thanks,
GB
I don't think your second experiment will succeed. In theory rotating a magnet won't change much, remember the analogy of the train. If the magnet was a super conductor though, rotating it would increase the magnet field due to electron lag which you mechanically control. In a regular magnet you would increase the spin of both electrons as the "positive" atoms they are bound to, thus canceling out speed gain.
To me it's just silly to debate about this subject, because it's obvious that the field is moving with source but that knowledge doesn't get me any further.
Quote from: broli on November 26, 2010, 01:47:37 AM
I don't think your second experiment will succeed. In theory rotating a magnet won't change much, remember the analogy of the train. If the magnet was a super conductor though, rotating it would increase the magnet field due to electron lag which you mechanically control. In a regular magnet you would increase the spin of both electrons as the "positive" atoms they are bound to, thus canceling out speed gain.
To me it's just silly to debate about this subject, because it's obvious that the field is moving with source but that knowledge doesn't get me any further.
You may be right about the second experiment not succeeding and I do agree that the field is moving with the source? We know in a rotating magnet and stationary circuit there are no charges seperated to induce an EMF, but we don't know if the field of the magnet can move the charges in this mode or not. I will concede that if the field of the magnet doesn't seperate the charges in this mode, then it's more than likely not able to move the charges either.....but we shouldn't assume. It hasn't been proven if the magnet has an electric field or not. However, the HPG/HPM's do have an electric field, so the electret/magnet experiments may better match the conditions in which we are testing for, than a magnet/magnet experiment.
I don't think it's silly to debate this, as long as there is experimentation and learning. You just never know what an experiment may reveal. We can advance a thousand rational hypotheses, whereas Nature makes use of only one, rejecting the other, however rational they may be. Or again, it may not even make use of any of them. We need to see whether it corresponds with the method Nature uses.
GB
Electrostatic charges in v x B fields: the Faraday disk and the rotating sphere, http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/lorrain_ejp_11_94_90.pdf
Below is snippet of the introduction in the above publication.
1. Introduction
Imagine a body that moves at velocity v in a region where there exist an electric field E and a magnetic field B. Then an electric charge Q inside the body feels a force Q(E + v x B). Thus, inside the moving body, the v x B field acts like the electric field of a distributed source. We are concerned here with conducting media that move in magnetic fields. We shall see that they carry electrostatic charges whose field is just as important as v x B. Indeed, there are many cases where the two fields cancel each other exactly at every point. The Faraday disk and a conducting sphere rotating in a magnetic field will serve as examples, but this little known effect plays a fundamental role in magnetohydrodynamics.
2. Electrostatic charges in v x B fields
It is well known that conductors do not support an electric space charge; any extra charge deposited inside moves out to the periphery almost instantaneously (Lorrain et al 1988, p 75). However, few physicists realise that conductors do carry an electric space charge when subjected to a v x B field whose divergence is not equal to zero. If the conductor is isolated, then it also carries a compensating surface charge.
GB
Electrostatic Swing Energy Harvester, http://www.electrostatics.org/images/ESA2010_G3_Reznikov.pdf
In contrast with heteropolar electret, the homopolar electret contains real charges of only one sign and charge of opposite sign is induced in available electrodes. The value of these charges depends on the capacitance between the electret charge and corresponding electrode that works as an electrostatic “mirrorâ€.
Replace the Al foil in Seth's e-motor, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ43FHAofJ8 , with a homopolar electret. Is it possible a motor of this kind could run without an external power supply?
GB
The main cause of Faraday's Paradox is the motor/rotor force of D orbital electon. I woke up this morning with this idea of how to explain the problem; the Twelve Days Christmas! On the first day a rotor was displayed(a "clutch'' if you may). On the second day two motors comin' on each side of ring torus just hummin'. Electrons exchanging in a lazy figure 8. Then on third day three quantum rings to hold all together. OK, OK, I'm working at it settle down.
To remind of scotty1's video. This seems to be a paradox but i think i have now explained it. For what is magnet but many small magnets forced side to side. Now, for a macroscopic analogy of this, say we have 20 small magnets glued close to each other in a block say 5cm wide and if we bring another such block in attraction above it and spin it, bottom one will lock with it and spin in sync. Well, this is how magnetic transmission works, nothing strange there.
But, as can be seen when individual magnets are much smaller as in case of permanent magnet domains, there is no locking. Seems strange, but reason is probably that flux finds it much easier to jump to another flux line in case of microscopic magnetic domains so no drag.
Quote from: scotty1 on September 27, 2008, 07:20:24 PM
Hi all.
Here is my test on Faraday's Paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8)
It clearly shows that the field does not rotate with the ring magnet.
Cheers
Scotty
QuoteHere is my test on Faraday's Paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8
It clearly shows that the field does not rotate with the ring magnet.
Cheers Scotty
I did the same experiment and countless others. I also invented a magnetic damper based on the fact a magnet will induce eddy currents in an aluminum plate when moved in every direction except a rotation. So the magnet/aluminum plate will dampen all vibrations on every axis but not hinder the rotation in any way.
Here's a clue, all the Primary Fields (Magnetic, Electric, Gravic) do not rotate with the supposed source. This phenomena isn't a paradox it's a fact most choose to ignore. You see it all but proves all fields are a property of the surrounding space and not the source we suppose produced them. The source changes something in the surrounding space and the effect moves with the source giving the illusion the field came from the source. Similar to how our shadow appears to follow us around everywhere we go.
Another clue, in many cases the Primary Fields cannot be shielded by other materials. The field appears to move through other materials as if they were not even there. This is because the field doesn't move through the material it exists in the space around it. Think of it this way, if we place a cork under water it still rises regardless of any supposed shielding placed on any side of it. The cork always rises because the buoyant force is an external pressure gradient which acts from every direction inward on the cork. It's not something acting outward but an external force acting from every direction inward.
This is probably why science has chosen to ignore the field rotation problem. It also explains why after 200 years nobody seems to have a clue what a field is. In effect, there chasing smoke and mirrors, there own shadow. The only question which remains is if this is intentional or just ignorance?.
AC
The 'explanation' for the paradox based on idea that "primary Fields (Magnetic, Electric, Gravic) do not rotate with the supposed source" is an old one, can be found in the comments below the video and probably in this thread too, i am perfectly aware of the claim. I used to think so too, but when one looks into it better, that is not the explanation.
Firstly, the idea of magnetic, electric, gravitic source is wrong. Charges/masses are NOT sources of the fields, they only APPEAR to be. Source is the unified omnipresent field itself.
Secondly, magnetic, electric, gravitic are not primary fields, these are low, secondary EFFECTS of the Universal Currents which cannot be directly observed or measured, yet fill all space and i spoke about all this many times, people just don't catch.
To quote from Etiodrhpa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCQGbTsq_Ws)
"All materials known to man are of coarse texture, and the minds of men are not yet in a condition to comprehend finer exhibitions of force, or of motion modifications. Pure energy, in all its modifications, is absolutely unknown to man. What men call heat, gravitation, light, electricity, and magnetism are the grosser attributes attending alterations in an unknown, attenuated, highly developed force producer. They are results, not causes. The real force, an unreached energy, is now flooding all space, pervading all materials. Everywhere there exists an infinite sea of motion absolute. Since this primeval entity can not now affect matter, as matter is known to man, man's sense can only be influenced by secondary attributes of this energy. Unconscious of its all-pervading presence, however, man is working towards the power that will some day, upon the development of latent senses, open to him this new world. Then at last he will move without muscular exertion, or the use of heat as an agent of motion, and will, as I am now doing, bridle the motion of space. Wherever he may be situated, there will then be warmth to any degree that he wishes, for he will be able to temper the seasons, and mass motion illimitable, also, for this energy, I reiterate, is omnipresent."
"If a series of knife blades on pivot ends be set in a frame, and turned edgewise to a rapid current of water, the swiftly moving stream flows through this sieve of metallic edges about as easily as if there were no obstructions. Slowly turn the blades so as to present their oblique sides to the current, and an immediate pressure is apparent upon the frame that holds them; turn the blades so as to shut up the space, and they will be torn from their sockets, or the entire frame will be shattered into pieces. The ethereal current that generates the magnetic force passes through material bodies with inconceivable rapidity, and the molecules of a few substances only, present to it the least obstruction. Material molecules are edgewise in it, and meet no retardation in the subtle flood. This force is a disturbance of space energy that is rushing into the earth in one form, and out of it in another."
"Now we, (by we I mean those with whom I am connected) have learned to disturb the molecules in matter so as to turn them partly, or entirely, across the path of this magnetic current, and thus interrupt the motion of this ever-present energy. We can retard its velocity without, however, producing either magnetism (as is the case in a bar of steel), electricity, or heat, but motion instead, and thus a portion of this retarded energy springs into its new existence as motion of my boat. It is force changed into movement of matter, for the molecules of the boat, as a mass, must move onward as the force disappears as a current. Perhaps you can accept now that instead of light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and gravitation being really modifications of force they are disturbances."
"Disturbances of what?"
"Disturbances of motion."
"Motion of what?"
"Motion of itself, pure and simple."
"I can not comprehend, I can not conceive of motion pure and simple."
"I will explain at a future time so that you can comprehend more clearly. Other lessons must come first, but never will you see the end. Truth is infinite.""
As i have explained above and before here
https://overunity.com/19090/just-another-don-smith-thread/msg567307/#msg567307
permanent magnet is made of many small magnets forced together.
If these magnets are sufficiently large (or rather, flux lines wide-apart) there WILL be magnetic-locking, and two such magnet disks in attraction will spin each other.
However, when those magnets are tiny and very close packed as in case of magnetic domains, there is no drag, reason for this is almost certainly that flux lines find it much easier to link when distances between them are microscopic vs macroscopic.
Main point being, it is misleading to think that fluxlines between two attracting magnets are not affected by spinning of magnets. If that were the case, how come fluxlines ARE affected if we space them apart a little, how come then there is magnetic locking and drag. So instead of this idea of flux lines not spinning i think it's rather that as i said, when they are closely packed they merge easily without drag and when they are far apart they get significantly bent and have to "jump" relatively large distances which they don't want to do, they prefer to stay locked, and this causes drag.
Nix85
QuoteMain point being, it is misleading to think that fluxlines between two attracting magnets are not affected by spinning of magnets.
from ChatGPT...
QuoteQuestion:
Are Faraday's lines of force real or conceptual
QuoteAnswer:
Faraday's lines of force are a conceptual tool used to represent the behavior of electric and magnetic fields. They were introduced by the physicist Michael Faraday in the 19th century to aid in visualizing and understanding the properties of electric and magnetic fields.
The concept of lines of force helps to illustrate the direction and intensity of the electric and magnetic fields around charged particles or magnets. The lines are drawn such that the tangent to a line at any point gives the direction of the electric or magnetic field at that point. The density of the lines represents the strength or intensity of the field.
It's important to note that Faraday's lines of force are not physical entities in themselves. They do not represent tangible objects or actual physical lines in space. Instead, they are a visual representation that allows us to comprehend and analyze the behavior of electric and magnetic fields.
Which begs the question why 99% of people have no idea "lines of force" are in fact a form of notation and were never meant to be taken literally. It's similar to the concept of North and South poles which are also forms of notation. Often confused with negative and positive polarity which are also not real but notations.
Notation:
the act, process, method, or an instance of representing by a system or set of marks, signs, figures, or characters. b. : a system of characters, symbols, or abbreviated expressions used in an art or science or in mathematics or logic to express technical facts or quantities.
In fact the whole notion of lines of force came about because most people got lazy. A magnetic and electric field have a uniform gradient of strength following the inverse square law. Like an onion with an infinite number of layers each having a different field strength at every point. However back in Faraday's time they did calculations by hand and didn't have computers. So they averaged and lumped everything together, invented notations in effect dumbing everything down to a level they could understand.
As ChatGPT put it...
QuoteThe concept of lines of force has been tremendously valuable in the field of electromagnetism and has provided significant insights into the nature of electric and magnetic interactions. However, it's essential to understand that they are a useful tool for visualization and understanding, rather than a physical reality.
So you are correct and it is misleading to think that flux lines between two attracting magnets are not affected by spinning of magnets because there is no such thing as flux lines.
AC
onepower You have not been following so you fall into traps of conventional bs.
Quote from: onepower on June 18, 2023, 11:46:28 PM
from ChatGPT...
"It's important to note that Faraday's lines of force are not physical entities in themselves. They do not represent tangible objects or actual physical lines in space. Instead, they are a visual representation that allows us to comprehend and analyze the behavior of electric and magnetic fields."
Wrong. Just like convention is wrong about countless things so are they wrong about this. Nothing is "physical", all is vibration, but actual individual lines of force do exist.
QuoteWhich begs the question why 99% of people have no idea "lines of force" are in fact a form of notation and were never meant to be taken literally.
Ironically, it is exactly you who has no idea lines of force do actually exists, they are not just "lumped conceptualisation". It matters not the least what useless, false, mainstream narrative says, they can't agree on anything anyway and contradict each other at every step. ALL their theories are wrong and ALL will be replaced. From classical mechanics to string theory and ALL in-between.
I have written countless times already that all is ultimately composed of universal currents which are themselves carrying etheric particles which are themselves ultimately made of vibration of Spirit. I explained exactly how time-space is created by bucking principle aka two sets of vibration 180° out of phase, how this neutralized field of vibration has been given structure with 6 axis of time which are relative to each other (nearby axis having 1:2 apparent speed ratio and consequently a 60° angle...) and so on infinitely. And that time which is the prime mover oscillates in place and matter of matter and antimatter universes captures vibrations of one polarity only. And local positive radiation from the sun and manifestation of gravity light and heat in atmosphere and the reflected opposite closing the circuit (male dropping down, female returning it up)....... But it of course all flew over your head.
Anyway, you don't have to understand these things, just use your intelligence. Realize that all this is created from literally nothing by vibration/sound.
Realize that for nothing to become something there had to be created a network of points of awareness which allows this imaginary field to exist. Realize this field has underlying structure. As i already explained underlying structure is vibrating spirit and it follows certain geometry.
As explained in sources below 2 of which are contactee and 1 Earth's astral...time-space is is a network of lines of em force, on the smallest scale we can see time-space itself is made of alternating polarities +-+-+-+-...... to infinity in all directions. So that already shows that there is no continuous field, there are "pixels" in a sense (altho limits are arbitrary for all is Spirit, and there is no theoretical limit to subdivision). In this field of alternating polarities, as i said before, flow certain currents carrying tiny "particles", little "bubbles of nothing" which actually do not have polarity in themselves, but attain it only in more complex aggregations, becoming male and female. As i said countless times before including few paragraphs above, these male etheric particles channel energy from higher plane toward the lower and female return it closing the circuit. But before etheric substance returns to higher plane(s) it makes wide circles on each level, these subtle streams are what is termed primary energy flows or universal currents, rivers of energy flowing out from galactic hubs into suns, from suns into planets and so on. It is all one cascading river of Force. And Force in all its manifestations forms lines, be it gravitational, magnetic or electric. And lines are tiny rivers in which etheric substance flows.
QuoteIt's similar to the concept of North and South poles which are also forms of notation. Often confused with negative and positive polarity which are also not real but notations.
Also wrong. Just like coil can be wound CW or CCW, and no matter if you turn the coil 180° it is still the same (try it), so do energies differ depending on the pole from which they emerge. We know in case of Earth south geographical pole which has been termed magnetic north pole is the negative one, while north geographical which has been termed magnetic south pole is the positive one. They have opposite characteristics just like heat and cold, compression and expansion etc.
Quote
So you are correct and it is misleading to think that flux lines between two attracting magnets are not affected by spinning of magnets because there is no such thing as flux lines.
AC
Wrong. You will learn in time that there are actual lines of force and it is absurd to think otherwise for above noted reasons.
Now it's up to you if you will foolishly believe the paradigm that is literally falling apart, which is actually already dead for a long time, and has rotten away, but some not exactly sincere individuals keep it artificially "alive"......or will you use your intelligence and listen to those who are coming from other planets in interdimensional spacecraft, who have correct understanding of things.
Quote from A Spacewoman Speaks
"The "electro-magnetic" drive obtains its power by
cutting the natural lines of force of a planet. The action is much the same as that of your electrical generators. The craft are oriented on the magnetic meridians in such a manner that a small electron beam will drive them. They can cross the meridians, or travel at an angle to them, in a manner similar to that used by your sailboats when "tacking into the wind." This form of drive can obviously be used only over some planetary body, but this body does not necessarily have to be on your vibrational level.
"Primary drive" is the only true space drive, aside from teleportation. It consists of mechanism, which will place the craft into synchronous frequency with the primary energy flows which permeate all the Universe, but slightly out of phase with them. The speed is theoretically unlimited with the speed of sound. In actual practice the maximum speed when using "primary drive" depends largely upon the skill of the operator in controlling the craft, and upon the degree of phase angle which can be applied, and that depends on the amount of "shading power" which the craft can supply."
Lines of force are mentioned in every major and true contactee case, from Zirbes, Koldas to Adamski, no point in quoting them all. Zirbes goes into great detail and how breaking of individual fluxlines releases its content which is bubbles of nothing, carriers of what you call "gravity". He also explains (which is also confirmed in Koldas case) that substance in magnetic fluxlines around Earth travels in sync, so those that are farther away travel faster and they exceed C, when they exceed C significantly they rupture and release bubbles of nothing the size of Earth into space. Adamski also spoke of these magnetic bubbles etc. In Koldas case is explained how magnetic fields connect all the planets and solar systems and galaxies expelled outward by the solar winds, and how these magnetic tunnels are used for travel and how flux lines in outer layers of the field exceed C and how ships use this to accelerate beyond C, dematerialize and rematerialize in a distant spot. Etc infinitely.
In short, there are definitely fluxlines.
Nix85
Your post sounds very familiar, so to recap...
-Everyone is wrong about everything except you, your right.
-there is no such thing as matter or energy only vibrations.
-transition from real science to false beliefs and wishful thinking.
It's cool however I think most understand that in the real world where we need to explain and demonstrate our theories yours doesn't hold water. Where I offered a few easy experiments anyone can do to prove why a field doesn't rotate with a simple scientific explanation.
Here is another real experiment my son did for a science project in grade 8 proving there are no such thing as lines of force and it's just a simple misunderstanding. It was cool because his teachers had a melt down, lol.
We all know about the circular pattern of lines made by iron filings around a magnet. In fact, we can use iron powder, filings, small or large pieces of iron wire. This pattern of lines was the main reason Faraday and many others came to the wrong conclusions. You see any time we have small objects which can be influenced by a magnetic or electric field they form lines. The process is called magnetic and electric field induction.
In effect the field induces an opposite polarity across the objects causing them to attract in series (unlike poles attract) and repel when parallel (like poles repel). So of course the filings tend to attract end to end and repel side to side forming lines. They do not show magical lines of force which is completely absurd. It is simply an effect of field induction so simple even a child could understand it.
So how is it I had to explain this to my son's science teachers and all the other adults in the room?. I assume they all went to school so how could they have no idea what field induction is or how it works?. I think it's because they were never taught the basics, first principals or critical thinking.
AC
onepower
Your posts sound familiar as well, again fully of adhominems and misconceptions.
- I never said or implied everyone is wrong about everything except me (and sarcasm does not help you either.). Like half of things i share is 100% conventional, and other half is the higher, some call esoteric/occult, which is a misnomer for we are talking not something abstract or fairytaleish but Higher Science that has been happening in parallel with so called "science". Great ones like Keely, Rota, Hollingshead etc, nothing new about any of this, Earth has seen countless civilizations rise to immense heights (to a point of antigravity and overunity being openly, widely used, to a point of opening portals etc) and fall back into barbarianism
-there is no such thing as matter or energy only vibrations indeed.
-transition from real science to false beliefs and wishful thinking is all yours.
Let's make it absolutely clear, you did not provide a single experiment that proves there are no fluxlines, there are however many experiments that show you are wrong and in addition to that, ALL, i repeat, ALL advanced sources underlined, say clearly there are fluxlines, and it is absurd to deny it for reasons i already clearly noted.
I have been saying for years fields are a property of the space and that there is really only one field, One Force, One Substance, that fields are a property of the surrounding space is basically the only thing you got right but even there you got the causality order wrong. What you call "source" - be it a charge like an electron or a particle of "matter" is there because the field FIRST created it, for anything to exist on this plane there first must exist the pattern of subtler order, astral in this case, that is CLOTHED in matter. Also, in attached text above from The Magic Bag where is clearly explained how 4 LINES of energy CROSS to create what is called an electron which (as also clearly stated) emits countless yet smaller "negative electrons" (calling the big electron positive). And in Tassel's attached text above it is explained how three LINES of energy (electric, magnetic and G-axis) cross to create an atom of hydrogen... we see creation of "particles" is based on PRINCIPLE OF LINE CROSSING (btw this was recreated), Tassel also shares that these lines contain substance flowing throu them, male (electric) and female (magnetic) substance which mate to produce a particle. I explained all this countless times but you hold to your false models refusing to accept Higher Knowledge. I have been gifted with Sight so i can recognize and correlate these Higher Sources. So listen and learn.
So to take out, everything that is manifested is first created on higher plane and then "clothed" in substance of a lower plane, THERE IS NO CREATION ON THIS PLANE, never was and never will be, ALL that is happening is CLOTHING of ideas in substance, no more no less. Second, equality important point is that ALL "particles" are created by crossing of LINES of energy that "mate" their substances. No more no less.
Or to put it most succintly
ASTRAL IDEAS ARE CLOTHED IN SUBSTANCE OF THIS PLANE (LIKE SKELETON IN FLESH)
ALL PARTICLES ARE CREATED BY FIELD LINE CROSSING AND SUBSTANCE MATING
They are universal, timeless, unchanging, core principles.
Everything you write is full of misconceptions, starting from your first post
"Another clue, in many cases the Primary Fields cannot be shielded by other materials. The field appears to move through other materials as if they were not even there. This is because the field doesn't move through the material it exists in the space around it."
Fundamental field exists in all space inside and outside of the particle, it IS space itself, no matter how many times i explain this it flies over your head, space itself is an illusion created by TIME (6 axis and 1:2 harmonic ratio). Like i wrote before, electric, magnetic and gravitic are NOT Primary Fields, these are secondary effects of higher orders of energy which pass through everything unimpeded in most cases.
"Pure energy, in all its modifications, is absolutely unknown to man. What men call heat, gravitation, light, electricity, and magnetism are the grosser attributes attending alterations in an unknown, attenuated, highly developed force producer. They are results, not causes. The real force, an unreached energy, is now flooding all space, pervading all materials. Everywhere there exists an infinite sea of motion absolute."
They are stepped down aspects of One Force and they CAN be shielded, all 3, for first 2 that is well known altho in case of magnetic term redirected is preferred, gravity itself can be shielded with special materials and high voltage. When gravity field is shielded another local gravity field results unlike shielding of electric and magnetic fields which are lower expressions of gravity, for ALL is based on this cascading principle of One Force as i said countless times.
I wrote countless times most fundamental field is the forcefield of time-space itself which, as clearly stated and depicted above, consists of tiny alternating polarities +-+-+-+-+-+-..... so it is a network of polarized energy and it fundamentally consists of LINES. And all lower force expressions are manifested on this "canvas", in this "water of creation" (and it is water-like) and follow this same pattern. Circular/spiraling lines of force flow on all levels.
So field passing through materials DOES pass through them, for that is another great principle ALL is based on, principle of superposition of waves, faster, smaller wavelengths cooexisting with slower, longer ones, without interference, in same manner as when you throw a big stone into water and bunch of tiny ones on top of it creating myriad of tiny ripples not one bit interferring with the bigger ones. In similar manner material object whose atomic speed has been accelerated can pass through other material objects as easily as through air. In fact right now other levels of reality cooexist with us on this very Earth, astral matter of which lower levels are very close to us vibration wise but distinct enough not to be visible or tangible to us MOST of the time (but not always - for when certain conditions are met astral matter can be made visible, one of the methods being use of ultrasound.......).
And your cork rising (in water) example is not good parallel for the subject matter. Far more correct parallel would be example of creating a whirl within the water by spin, assuming water had superfluid properties as ether does, whirl would continue to spin and that is your "particle", and as long as particle spins it exists and radiates outward, the moment it is "unwound" in dissolves back into ether from which it apparently emerged, for it never really existed but as an PATTERN, much like trail in the sand, reformed by the next coming wave, everchanging, yet the sand changes not.
In case all this sounds complex to someone, it can be simplified very shortly, there is an infinite time-space forcefield produced by bucking principle (2 sets of wide-band vibrations 180° out of phase), into this forcefields are BLOWN, i repeat, BLOWN, "bubbles of nothing", tiny voids in this superdense forcefield, and as they are blown into existence they are as well blown down certain paths, lines of force manifesting all forces and "matter" as they cascade from God all the way down the 7 great cosmic planes and inumberable sub-sub-sub planes all based on division of 7. Everything is made of these tiny bubbles, all spiritual, mental, astral and "physical" planes. It is all one and the same substance - literally. So i put "physical" in quotes for it is no more physical than is the highest spiritual plane right at the Source.
As for your claim that magnetic attraction and repulsion and appearance of fluxlines are "simply an effect of field induction" is of course wrong. If there were no lines of flux and it was just a field without fluxlines, then iron filings would not form into relatively thick lines, each atom of iron would repel those nearby and we would have a fine gradient, there would be no bands. Bands are a direct result and proof of fluxlines.
I already explained in previous post so a child could understand why it is absurd to deny there are flux lines. I have already shared all those occult and contactee sources that all agree there are fluxlines etc.
All in all, there are definitely fluxlines, tiny rivers/bands in which etheric substance flows, they are the fundamental property of TIME-space itself.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Quote from Suppressed and. Incredible Inventions by John Freeman (http://lilpictureplace.com/downloads/Suppressed_&_Incredible_Inventions.pdf)
"Metal cones which are held in magnetic fields at the correct point have been able to produce the electromagnetic frequency of silica in the spectrum and to produce the element itself. Scientists are on the verge of producing all elements under similar principles."
I would bet those cones and/or magnetic fields were at 90° aka crossed.
QuoteGen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Santa Clause and the Easter bunny would probably disagree.
In any case this nonsense has no place in a science based FE forum.
AC
Agree!
It was a reply to Nix's post, which I actually read.
It shows that man was created on earth and was given life by God's breath.
santa (odin) and easter bunny are pagan perversions of the truth, of course they'd disagree.
Alan
Don't be stupid and everyone knows what you meant.
The fact you felt compelled to double down and repeat it is proof enough.
Here's a clue, real facts are self-evident and don't need to continually be repeated trying desperately to convince everyone there true.
AC
https://youtu.be/CfyNgopB0Ig
Interesting responses and some people seem to feel compelled to pollute all the Faraday Parodox threads with off topic nonsense. One has to wonder if there intent is to misdirect?.
It's not rocket science, the subject is Faraday's Paradox experiment not all this nonsensical bullshit many seem to be posting in violation of forum rules.
AC
Fortunately, we can all make up our own minds as to who pollutes with BS and who is interested in supporting the experiments.
D2
nix85
QuoteIt is exactly those who call these highly illuminating Truths "nonsense" and "bullshit" who pollute the thread, same those who insist in their fallacy (very possibly as intentional disinfo campagin) altho their false claims have been completely disproven .
So my offering proof why a magnetic field doesn't rotate is off topic disinformation and your seemingly endless bible camp diatribe is on topic...got it.
I will leave you to it then because as Mark Twain suggested...
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".
AC
That's one of my favorite sayings also AC!
D2
@nix85, You're mistaken the field doesn't move w the magnet.
Magnetic fields do not rotate along their magnetization axis, Onepower is correct.
While I agree with you that permanent magnets can have slight variations in their fields due to their construction it doesnt change that fact.
I have to admit that I was in that camp too for a while, I even designed a brushless homopolar generator based on that assumption.
Here is a link to an excellent video on the topic, In paricular pay attention to the scope during the various tests. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE.
This wasn't what made me figure it out. Trust I was like 'you idiot' to myself when I did, but it should help you if you're as smart as you think.
The key is the return path.
@onepower You offered no proof that field does not spin, you offered an endless diatribe of foolishness, and my SINGLE bible-related post was clearly a reply to alan who replied to me with bible quote, so what, this is an open forum, we can discuss various things, it's not a Nazi camp, you twit.
I, unlike you, offered concrete proofs that fields spin with the "source" - firstly as i wrote
https://overunity.com/16769/faraday-paradox-revisitedmagnetic-field-rotation-question/msg579459/#msg579459
the concept of "source" is wrong in a sense you use it, for source of a gravity field can be outside of this plane, no matter or EM fields present in the area - yet gravity field is present, how come, that much about your "source". (Think about astral beings aka "ghosts" moving things).
Further on, fact is is variations in flux density of a PM are fixed to particular spots and spin with the magnet. This clearly proves field as a whole spins.
Further on, all occult/contactee sources of Higher Knowledge agree that all on all scales is made of spinning, pulsating toroid-vortices made of individual fluxlines as clearly depicted in theosophical Anu and other sources. Earth's etheric vortex spins at constant velocity and Earth spins with it in its center. This is 180° from your false, non-spinning field "idea". You foolishly dismiss these sources, but time will show this is exactly how nature operates. Spinning, spiraling toroid vortices made of lines of flux in which flow etheric "bubbles of nothing" (holes/voids in the time-space forcefield), just like Keely (http://www.rexresearch.com/keely/keely.html) depicted 130 years ago.
As for your Twain quote, i never read anything more ironic, if i am stupid that makes you stupid to the power of infinity.
And there, Holcomb cheerleader idiot jumps in to pollute the thread with BS, cheerleader who never contributed a single technical/scientific or any thing of value, never a single one literally so.
Also when rakarskiy, another disinformer backed by the cheerleader, was disinforming about the Hooper-Monstein for days and weeks, i have proven his claims are 100% false for induction happens there in most normal manner.
https://pasteboard.co/G39LG6W16pJU.gif
Stupid cheerleader wasting server space with BS.
@phoneboy I am not mistaken, magnetic fields do rotate along their magnetization axis and he is not correct.
It's not just that permanent magnets have slight variations in their fields that matters, and you sleazily try to leave it at that leaving out the key part....
it is the fact flux variations are fixed to their respective parts of a magnet and spin with it. This clearly proves that field as a whole spins with the magnet.
I know the video you linked and it shows nothing to the contrary.
You did not figure it out, you are not a student of time-space mehanics, you are not a student of higher sources of learning, you are simply lost like most. Say 'you idiot' to yourself again.
I have already spoken about the the return path and no, it's not the key. The key is the fact variations of flux density are fixed with a magnet and spin with it.
Quote from: nix85 on June 27, 2023, 03:28:27 PM
@onepower You offered no proof that field does not spin, you offered an endless diatribe of foolishness, and my SINGLE bible-related post was clearly a reply to alan who replied to me with bible quote, so what, this is an open forum, we can discuss various things, it's not a Nazi camp, you twit.
I, unlike you, offered concrete proofs that fields spin with the "source" - firstly as i wrote
https://overunity.com/16769/faraday-paradox-revisitedmagnetic-field-rotation-question/msg579459/#msg579459 (https://overunity.com/16769/faraday-paradox-revisitedmagnetic-field-rotation-question/msg579459/#msg579459)
the concept of "source" is wrong in a sense you use it, for source of a gravity field can be outside of this plane, no matter or EM fields present in the area - yet gravity field is present, how come, that much about your "source". (Think about astral beings aka "ghosts" moving things).
Further on, fact is is variations in flux density of a PM are fixed to particular spots and spin with the magnet. This clearly proves field as a whole spins.
Further on, all occult/contactee sources of Higher Knowledge agree that all on all scales is made of spinning, pulsating toroid-vortices made of individual fluxlines as clearly depicted in theosophical Anu and other sources. Earth's etheric vortex spins at constant velocity and Earth spins with it in its center. This is 180° from your false, non-spinning field "idea". You foolishly dismiss these sources, but time will show this is exactly how nature operates. Spinning, spiraling toroid vortices made of lines of flux in which flow etheric "bubbles of nothing" (holes/voids in the time-space forcefield), just like Keely (http://www.rexresearch.com/keely/keely.html) depicted 150 years ago.
As for your Twain quote, i never read anything more ironic, if i am stupid that makes you stupid to the power of infinity.
And there, Holcomb cheerleader idiot jumps in to pollute the thread with BS, cheerleader who never contributed a single technical/scientific or any thing of value, never a single one literally so.
Also when rakarskiy, another disinformer backed by the cheerleader, was disinforming about the Hooper-Monstein for days and weeks, i have proven his claims are 100% false for induction happens there in most normal manner.
https://pasteboard.co/G39LG6W16pJU.gif (https://pasteboard.co/G39LG6W16pJU.gif)
Stupid cheerleader wasting server space with BS.
@phoneboy I am not mistaken, magnetic fields do rotate along their magnetization axis and he is not correct.
It's not just that permanent magnets have slight variations in their fields that matters, and you sleazily try to leave it at that leaving out the key part....
it is the fact flux variations are fixed to their respective parts of a magnet and spin with it. This clearly proves that field as a whole spins with the magnet.
I know the video you linked and it shows nothing to the contrary.
You did not figure it out, you are not a student of fundamental time-space mehanics, you are not a student of higher sources of learning, you are simply lost like most. Say 'you idiot' to yourself again.
I have already spoken about the the return path and no, it's not the key. The key is the fact variations of flux density are fixed with a magnet and spin with it.
@nix85, Wow dude. 'sleazily'
You say you've seen that video, ok then tell me this.
They spin the disk (magnet stationary) and get a current.
Then the magnet and disk are spun in the same direction but now there is only relative motion between the return path and the field except the field cuts the conductor in the opposite direction so why hasn't the currents polarity changed????
Because the field doesn't spin. There is no paradox.
I guess the rules of induction don't apply to you.
Look I get that this universe to us is just an 'illusion' of our perception but for you its seems as if its a 'delusion' so you enjoy that.
Please do everyone on this forum a favor and start taking your meds again.
Quote from: phoneboy on June 27, 2023, 04:56:41 PM
...but now there is only relative motion between the return path and the field except the field cuts the conductor in the opposite direction so why hasn't the currents polarity changed????
Because the field doesn't spin. There is no paradox...
Sleazy cause you left out the key part. Anyway. For the video.
Like i said i know the video and have seen it years ago, i have been aware of Faraday "paradox" since the beginning of my research into overunity 10 years ago. Of Bruce De Palma - N Machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krx3dqoxKA0
Of Tesla's variation of the Faraday disk with spiraling grooves...... etc.
There are various theories and as video you linked says relativists say field does spin with the magnet and maxwellians say it does not, in this case relativists are right.
Your "argument" is nonsense. You did not explain the apparent paradox, you did not even present a remotely sensible theory. If you think you have an "explanation" put it forward intelligently and with absolute clarity, if you do so, i will consider it with pleasure.
I don't have an explanation for the apparent paradox at the moment and neither do you. I do however understand induction far far better than you including its more subtle aspects of which you are 100% ignorant. As i wrote before, your colleague was also making wrong claims and he was disproven.
https://pasteboard.co/G39LG6W16pJU.gif
When talking about strange aspects of induction one needs to get into the Vector Potential aka the A field i spoke of countless times around here
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Andersen_AETHER_CONTROL_via_an_understanding_of_ORTHOGONAL_FIELDS.pdf
And also highly relevant is Henry's disovery of two kinds of induction i also recently spoke about again.
https://overunity.com/18391/two-kinds-of-induction-henry/
He has proven that induction contains at least two types of phenomena, one that produces fierce shocks and can be screened by any metal etc, and one weaker which does not produce shocks and cannot be screened by any metal except iron. And his last experiment (number 51) removes all doubt about the clear distinction between the two.
So there is FAR more to induction than you supposed there is.
I guess the rules of induction don't apply to YOU.
You have no idea what induction even is.
And to return to flux variations... Again, it is an undeniable fact variations of flux density are fixed relative to magnet and as magnet spins they spin in sync - field does spin.
Even if it is just 1 gauss difference in one point on the magnet, that point with 1 gauss difference spins in sync with the magnet. You cannot just dismiss this or brush it off or close your eyes and pretend it's not there.
You don't get anything, you have just proven that universe is a delusion for YOU, so YOU enjoy that. You know nothing about time-space mechanics, about gravity and other sub fields. You are not even aware of Earth's spinning etheric vortex. Don't embarrass yourself by attempting to discuss the subject you don't have even the basic knowledge of, let alone the deeper aspects of it (Vector Potential aka A field, Henry's discovery of two aspects of induction etc). And take your own advice, please do everyone on this forum a favor and start taking your meds again.
The paradox is not a yes or no type of thing
It pertains to the frame of reference of the observer.
The magnetic field rotates in its' own frame of reference
Independently from the rotation of the disk(s) and/or magnet(s)
This is in part from their rotation, but also the impedance of free space,
and the fact that the field is time-dilative by its' own propagation.
'disconnected' from the experiment so to speak
by choice of another frame of reference from which to observe the field,
the true magnetic rotation can be measured.
what must be understood, fully:
we never detect a field
We detect the flux (change) with respect to the ambient or our arbitrary neutral state.
Therefore: the more uniform the field, the less and less we will be able to detect the rotation,
even with the most sensitive of equipment, when observing from the standard perspective.
We are looking for a rotation, but rotating with respect to what?
Not the disk, not the magnet, not us
But rather the space the magnet sits in
The disk sees a uniform field, very much like our instruments
the currents see the field rotation
This was described by Faraday, Foucault, Tesla and others.
The paradox is the perspective, an observation which seems to go against Faraday's induction
As i said on most fundamental level nothing spins for there is nothing to spin relative to, effect of spin is created by phase difference of 6 axis of time - similar to rotating magnetic field of induction or synchronous motor. Spinning 6-phase time field is the source of everything.
More about 6 axis https://vril12.wordpress.com/6-axis-of-time/
Spin is the very core principle of creation. If zoomed in fabric of space looks like alternating charges.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Little voids, "bubbles of nothing" flow in this electromagnetic net in lines and spirals, they can take any path Will directs them............... and as they flow in lines and spirals they form force-fields.
This greatly simplifies things that are poorly understood for it shows God creates a "canvas" or "water of creation" by neutralized vibrations aka destructive interference and blows into it near-infinite number of tiny bubbles and all forces, all energy and ultimately "matter" are condensations of these tiny bubbles. Everything else is of secondary importance.
As for orientation of this network, we cannot speak of any particular orientation, it is totally perspective-dependent. So when we hold a magnet at certain angle and we say flux is in this direction, we must remember Earth is rotating around its axis simultaneously rotating around the sun and the center of the galaxy and so on, but all those relative rotations don't really matter cause we are inside Earth's gravity field which is non-inertial just like field of a flying saucer, it can go from 40,000km/h to a stop in a fraction of a second and coffee inside the craft is not spilled, cause all atoms inside the field are accelerated/decelerated simultaneously and uniformly, there is no relative acceleration as in case of accelerating/decelerating car or a plane which glue you to your seat.
So, Earth's gravity bubble moves through time-space at immense velocities in a very very complex pattern, but we feel as if does not move at all.....as gravity field, being a non-inertial field is a world for itself, and as far as it is concerned it does not even move, but everything else moves relative to it.
If there was only Earth in existence question of direction of motion would be nonsensical. For space is infinite and uniform in its properties, there would be no way to tell "which way" we are going.
All these things are important to keep in mind when discussing something like this.
Earth's gravity field is a sub-field aka sub-vortex within Sun's vortex which is a sub-vortex within galactic vortex and so on in similar russian-doll like manner.
As real contactee Elizabeth Klarer says
"Gravity is the push from the hub of the flattened spiral of the cosmic storm that is our galaxy. These waves are oscillating at frequencies thousands of megacycles beyond the visible light spectrum.".
As i also said before Sun is the focal point of primary energy flows. Sun is redistributing them to planets and moons and these primary energy flows are focalizing on planetary neutral centers pressing all matter downward. This is gravity.
Vortex extends in 7 higher (astral) and 7 lower (astral) spheres, each partially interpenetrating the nearby ones (vesica piscis and Jesus's fish).
So, point is space is filled with these universal etheric currents and stars and planets and spacecraft with primary drive are locally polarizing these subtle flows. And wherever the star, planet or spacecraft moves this pattern of polarized primary flows moves with it.
So to go back to question of a magnet and its field, as i have said x times before, physical magnet being made of matter is in reality a condensed - lowest form of trapped universal currents aka primary energy flows, is just a pattern of trapped energy at certain energy level. It is totally invisible for vast majority of primary energy flows flowing through that particular point in space at that particular moment, but for a certain narrow band it is not invisible and it provides resistance to it by impedance mismatch and disharmony. This allows these primary energy currents to discharge part of their energy into form observable to us as magnetic field.
In very similar manner these primary energy flows can be resisted and directly converted into MOTION with spontaneous accompanying generation of a spinning invisible field of force which is literally a gravity field - without producing secondary effects like a magnetic field which itself steps down the gravity vortex flow down into magnetic flow, all forces being one cascading force. It is one and the same primary energy flow resisted in two different ways. Don't you see ALL is just primary energy flows resisted to various degrees, nothing more nothing less.
I have also recently made an important point that gravity field can be present at a point in space without any matter or detectable EM fields. Ask yourself how. Totally impossible according to official theories (and i am not talking about dark matter unless they define dark matter as belonging to higher plane of existence, not this one). For real source is not in this dimension, no matter if the matter and EM fields are present or not, they are secondary effects, not real causes.
As for reference frames, fact is variations in field flux density rotate in sync with the magnet, as i animated here.
https://pasteboard.co/Qtb3OMlqiJvg.gif
Field does rotate (with the magnet). And as i wrote before, magnet is a "resistor" for Earth's vortex aka gravity field stepping it down into magnetic form, just like Earth's vortex is a stepped down form of Sun's vortex and so on. And Earth's gravity field which is literally a vortex of etheric bubbles also most definitely spins, not with the Earth, but Earth spins with IT. Etc. Earth's etheric vorex as shown to contactee Lloyd Zirbes below showing Moon with its subvortex within Earth's vortex, distance and size obviously not to scale. And also illustration from Oahspe showing the edge of Earth's vortex with astral plateaus around it. So it is not even a question whether fields spin with the source, it is an unquestionable fact.
And all these fields are, as i wrote before, patterns in the underlying forcefield.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-