"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[verpies]

That is different because in that case we have a time a time varying magnetic field that does work by pushing the charges away.
In your pot/cage system, the work was supposed to be done by the attraction of separated opposite charges coming together.

But we do have a time varying component: it is the closing and opening (electronically) of the Faraday cage that creates incoming waves of an otherwise static electric field.

But you are missing the point. 
The issue here is not that some field is time varying but the difference in the type of force that drives the charges. 
In the case of electrostatic induction it is the force created by another charge that causes the separation of opposite charges in the cage material. 
An energy recuperation in this case can be only upon relaxation of those separated charges as the try to attract back together.

In case of the coil the force driving the charges is different and it acts differently. Most importantly it causes the usable motion of the charges immediately - without intermediate energy storage in the separation of opposite charges.

Can we convert a static magnetic field into a varying magnetic field without the consumption of (much) energy? I don't think so, but maybe, who knows.
Can we convert a static electric field into a varying electric field without the consumption of (much) energy? Since contrary to a static magnetic field a static electric field can be shielded easily, therefore I think it is more likely that this could work.

Yes, canceling the forces acting on electric charges is possible in case of electrostatic phenomena.
We cannot easily shield that 'something" that causes those forces, but we can redirect it and symmetrize it out ...with matter.

P.S.: Since we don't know what an electric field actually is, then maybe it doesn't matter that we also don't know what a magnetic field actually is, does it?

We do and it matters.

[verpies]

And now what does that all mean in reference to the Faraday cage on Kapanadze's table?

Not every closed metal box must purposefully function as a Faraday's cage, even if it inadvertently functions as such.
Maybe its function is sociotechnic or anti-EMI or even a container for a transformer oil.
But for the purpose of your proposition we may assume that it purposely functions as a Faraday's cage.

Could this »spatial field of various hypothetical forces« have something to do with the high output current of that paint can?

It's your baby.  We can discuss it and see where it takes us.

Does Miles Mathis know the principle of work of the Kapanadze device?

He does not even know who he is.

So I have a cage and this cage is bombarded (by something).

Yes, by "something" that is 10⁸ smaller than electron and has mass (and all the consequences that go with it), but is not that mysterious vacuum Aether.
We will not discuss the composition of that "something" for now, in order not to get sidetracked.

Anyway, the directionality of that "something" is affected by matter.  The nuclei of different elements affect it differently.  These nuclei can divert it, redirect it, spread it around or generally directionalize it differently, but they can never slow it down nor stop it nor absorb it.  I don't think that matter can reflect it 180º and with 100% effectiveness, either.

As a side note, I should mention at this point that this opportunist Joseph Newman, somehow got it it right that this "something" moves not only linearly but also spins as it travels.  This rotational motion can be clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the direction of its linear movement and that spin is the cause of magnetism.

Then how to convert this bombardment into an electric current?

I don't know - it's your baby.  I can only tell you if it has arms and legs.

You can certainly "turn-of" the force acting on a charge inside a Faraday's cage.
Perhaps you could trap a carrier of electric charge  (ion, electron, positron, muon, etc...) in a circular orbit in that cage and periodically "turn-off" the force from a charge outside the cage that acts on the trapped charge inside the cage, during that portion of the orbit when that force would slow down orbital speed of the trapped charge.  This would accumulate kinetic energy in the motion of charge carrier (e.g. ion).

The catch is whether the opening and closing of your cage "doors" would be energy efficient, e.g. because the charge trapped inside the cage attracts the "doors" of the cage.

You have to propose some mechanism of closing and opening the door periodically without expending much energy.

[Zeitmaschine]

That baby has arms and legs, so what do we have besides arms and legs? A metal box that looks like a Faraday cage with something attached that looks like purposeful shielding. Further properties are: this cage has an outside and an inside, the outside is grounded, it is hollow, there is high voltage in that cage and there are holes in it for some wires. Here comes the first question: Is that function that we are looking for (the tapping of an electric field) created by means of that high voltage or is the high voltage created by that function?

Anyway this reminds me somehow of the two Kapanadze heat sinks. So I would rather tend to the former.

Another question would be, do we really need high voltage or could it do grid voltage as well? Maybe the latter works also but it generates less output energy.

The normal way to use (or demonstrate) a Faraday cage is to have high voltage outside and a shielded space inside the cage. But obviously in this case the situation is vice versa. The high voltage is clearly inside the grounded cage. If I'm correct then this high voltage should create an electric field inside that grounded cage. Hence could this field inside work as a periodical door opener for the field outside by means of the outgoing wires which acts as antennas?

Maybe someone could make a quick experiment so we can amend that results to the textbooks.

But you are missing the point. 
The issue here is not that some field is time varying but the difference in the type of force that drives the charges. 
In the case of electrostatic induction it is the force created by another charge that causes the separation of opposite charges in the cage material. 
An energy recuperation in this case can be only upon relaxation of those separated charges as the try to attract back together.

I think we both missing the point somehow. What is the difference between the electric field of a charged capacitor (electronic part) and the electric field of a charged capacitor (Earth-Sun constellation)? If the electronic capacitor contains usable energy (a connected lamp shines) then the Earth-Sun capacitor should contain also usable energy, shouldn't it? So that should not be the problem.

Thus I will rephrase my question: What exactly (what physical law) prevents us from connecting a load to that Earth-Sun capacitor (tapping the static electric field of that capacitor)? Except of course that we can't reach the Sun's surface. Why can I get energy out of an ordinary electronic capacitor although its electric field is also static without any time varying factor (oscillations)? That what we need is an artificial second capacitor plate as replacement for the plate that is represented by the surface of the Sun, isn't it?

P.S.: Given what I can see (or not can see) on Kapanadze's table that whole equation stuff looks rather overcomplicated to me.

[d3x0r]

(ADDED)


thought for food....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWkhUwX4D5s

Hmm but they stop at....  a magnetic field changes the direction of a moving charged particle.... how does that explain feromagnetism ... attraction of magnets... which is sort of a gravity... I guess magnetic poles attract.

is a single electron moving a current?


Does the current have to go through the structure of a conductor? (end of video 1 in russian has electrons spiraling around an orbit as they move, which would be a hint towards skin effect).


If two wires with current in the same direction attract each other, because of opposing direction of poles at their mating... why isn't this just a cancelation instead of a composite to build a larger field?

So... to move an electric charge, you would need to have a magnetic field always at a right angle to it vs its direction... that itself moves...


dollard mentions that magnetism results from electrons stopping not moving.  A CRT has electrons moving, but they (are?) magnetic.  If they are moving faster do they have a smaller field?  Or because they have mass they get deflected less?  or deflection happens based on charge only and not mass?


is the magnetic field always everywhere?  Or only where we detect it to be?  would it happen to be somewhere else if we weren't obstructing it? 





(russian, but the animations make some sense)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELYp3FZnHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8ZijiWAOE

[verpies]

Hmm but they stop at....  a magnetic field changes the direction of a moving charged particle.... how does that explain feromagnetism ... attraction of magnets... which is sort of a gravity... I guess magnetic poles attract.

Yes, attraction of magnets has a lot to do with gravity (which is just a pseudoscalar 3D motion in all available dimensions).
Anyway, take a look at the illustration below depicting the head-on collision of spinning baseballs, to get a rough* mechanical idea why magnetic phenomena is perpendicular to electric phenomena and read this for a detailed explanation.  Take your time reading it - if you just skim it without understanding, then it will be lost on you and you will annoy me with confused questions later.

is a single electron moving a current?

Yes

Does the current have to go through the structure of a conductor?

No

If two wires with current in the same direction attract each other, because of opposing direction of poles at their mating... why isn't this just a cancellation instead of a composite to build a larger field?

Because of spin superposition. Read the article.

So... to move an electric charge, you would need to have a magnetic field always at a right angle to it vs its direction... that itself moves...

Yes, that's why a rotating magnetic field acts like a fan for stationary electric charges.
Take a look at the photo of such magnetic fan that was used to pump out electrically charged dust from a clean-room.
Open this animation in your browser to see how 4 coils fed by phase-shifted current can create a rotating magnetic field (2 crossed coils can do the same).

dollard mentions that magnetism results from electrons stopping not moving. 

Well yes, but not electrons.  It is the smaller "entities" driving electrons that get stopped, just like the linear-motion of those counter-rotating baseballs gets stopped (in the direction of their original linear motion).

A CRT has electrons moving, but they (are?) magnetic. 

Not by themselves, but together with motion they will interact magnetically with other entites.

is the magnetic field always everywhere?    Or only where we detect it to be? 

A magnetic field is just an abstract mathematical construct, a name for a region where electric charges would experience forces perpendicular to their relative motion. 
In other words it is a force field (a field of forces that would act on moving charges). 
A field of hypothetical forces is not something real. 
However those little spinning entities (motions or spinning units of space), that cause the magnetic interactions, are real and they are almost everywhere.

If they (electrons) are moving faster do they have a smaller field?

A field is just an abstract mathematical construct that illustrates interaction between motions, in the form of forces that would occur between two entities (motions).  One entity cannot have a field of forces by itself.  It takes two to tango. It takes two entities (motions) for an interaction to occur.

Because of the above, I have to answer "no" electron does not have any fields by itself, but the faster it moves the more it interacts magnetically with other entities, and when these interactions occur, then forces are created.  Those forces can then be predicted and abstracted into a force field ... even if they don't actually all occur.

Or because they have mass they get deflected less?  or deflection happens based on charge only and not mass?

Both. That's the Modus Operandi of mass spectrometry.

would it happen to be somewhere else if we weren't obstructing it? 

I don't understand that question.

(russian, but the animations make some sense)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELYp3FZnHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8ZijiWAOE

I can't stand to watch them despite understanding Russian.
Electrons orbiting the nuclei disgust me too much.



* "rough" because rotational axes are drawn incorrectly.