Cause and Effect in Electro-Magnetic systems

[dward]

check this magnet
K&J Magnetics - Products

Thats crazy! I'm always amazed, as soon as I stop looking at what's going on in materials science, I come back to it and it's like a whole new era of stuff has been created.

[erfinder]

Enough fun with the lubricated or levitated axis!

We have a newfound puzzle to solve!

My belief:
All that is gravitic has been touched by a current (even if in minute proportion).
One could consider that "without the electric there can be no gravity".

There, it's done.

So, @ERFinder, what do you feel about your configuration has influenced your CEMF to depart (beneficially, with minimal influence) your system in such a willful manor (seemingly defeating the effects of capacitive/inductive reactance and ultimately potential loads in the process)?

Curious, no doubt. But, some may be wondering (at this early stage of the thread) just what you've built. Can you describe (show if comfortable) the design of this puzzle?

The simple answer is in my device I can use the CEMF to charge the supply (deemed impossible). Owing to the timing, and a few other factors, there is no mechanical (Lenz) loading experienced when the supply is being charged. The method by which the supply is charged is novel, I have not seen it done by anyone. I suspect that John Bedini is using this but I can only speculate on that. I'm not defeating the effects of capacitive/inductive reactance, I'm finding that reactance isn't an issue when the coils are properly communicating.

I am parameter varying the inductance, and as a reaction to this there can be an exponential increase in the capacitance of the coil. The coil becomes a capacitor...the supply is hit with capacitor (here the inductor is a capacitor of varying capacitance) discharge between drive pulses, no extra circuitry required, the supply receives a pulse when the supply current is removed. In addition to this, the inductive kickback from this same coil (huh) is collected and sent to a load of choice. This is the first time that I have seen a true separation of CEMF and inductive kickback, it is also the first time I have seen CEMF being utilized, independant of the inductive kickback (i.e. Window motor) and a mechanism for increasing the potential of the CEMF to the point to where it can exceed the source potential.

I hope I have answered your questions, if you would like more info, just ask. I am preparing a kit which will demonstrate this phenomena, and will be offering it for sale soon.

Regards

[Ruphus]

I thought this is a great start


The Nature Of The Electron - Hypography Science Forums

[Hrothgar]

wow

So the implication (at least to me) is that an electron is a toroid of photons and that the center is the one dimensional crux of magnetic focus which at that level of spin is a division by zero which yields infinity. Would distort space-time enough to create a gravitational field.

[myenergetic]

MMan-made material shows surprisingly magnetic property

@Ren


I know the feeling, we keep hammering away day after day and nothing of substance occurs. However every now and then we have a singular thought and this thought keeps expanding so fast we can hardly keep track of where it's going or where we have been. I live for these moments of discovery and it seldom requires proof ... we know.

It springs from an apparent nothing, an instantaneous comprehension, that Ah ha moment. I have often wondered where this comes from and how the mind can pull such creativity from the depths of mediocrity.

That is why I started this thread, I have no interest in old facts nor repeating past mistakes, if someone can show me one creative and original thought I would be forever grateful.

AC

@Allcanadian and all

It is very challenging and interesting subject:

In the model you proposed, even if we avoid the direct gravitational friction to the proposed shaft the mag field of PM generate a Faraday disk type current to the shaft were we need a process of nullifying the effect.

The following might shed some light to the magnetic properties of materials, but unfortunately not the definition of magnet.

Man-made material shows surprisingly magnetic property
(Phys.org) —Scientists from SLAC and Stanford have used finely tuned X-rays at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) to pin down the source of a mysterious magnetism that appears when two materials are sandwiched together.
These particular perovskites are known as LAO (lanthanum aluminum oxide) and STO (strontium titanium oxide), and both are insulators.
Read more at: Man-made material shows surprisingly magnetic personality

Hope it helps

[Allcanadian]

@Ruphus

I thought this is a great start
The Nature Of The Electron - Hypography Science Forums

That is an interesting concept however it's kind of like a Rabbit Hole and it is easy to get caught up and lost in it. Another issue is that it is self-centered and all the standard models generally revolve around objects. I think this tends to lead to confusion because at some point we still have to deal with cause and effect or action at a distance.

Generally speaking this is where most all models fail because we are always left with action at a distance through a medium which is supposedly dead or empty space.

I prefer a more practical approach and if the model cannot reconcile action at a distance immediately and intuitively I discard it. I would agree it is fun to get lost in an imaginary world of space-time toroidal photons however at some point we are left asking the same old question --- where is the application?. I guess my problem is that I'm a farmboy at heart and whenever my boots leave the ground that's when the problems start. As such if a model or process cannot be applied directly or has no immediate use then fundamentally it is useless to me.

The models I have been working with are more intuitive and more generalized to be application oriented. Now what if we had a model which immediately brought a myriad of useful applications to mind which directly apply to our everyday lives?. Don't get me wrong I love thinking about these kinds of things but we have big problems which need real solutions right now not 20 years down the road.

AC

[Allcanadian]

Let's start with a new premise exactly the opposite to the one's we know. It is not ego-centric or self-centered but completely the opposite to how we as people think.

To do this we could simply reverse cause and effect and conceive that an object and any effects related to it must always relate directly to the space it occupies and that surrounding it. That is all energy relates to forces external to objects and acts outward/inward and vice versa.

We could start with this.....
E is an Electromotive force and M a Magnetomotive force and all that is external to these forces tied to objects must relate to Electrodynamic(EM) forces. An object can be regarded as matter in whatever form it may take with no regard to it's size.

Now we have some basic equations--
If E moves (EM - E = M)
If M moves (EM -M= E)

We tie it all together by inferring neither E nor M was ever a tangible force in itself solely related to objects and was simply an EM phase transition(dynamic) due to the objects presence in the EM field. We should remember that a field of force can only occupy the space external to an object in basically every known model.

Albert Einstein said "Nothing happens until something moves" however he failed to reconcile what might occur if everything was already in motion. Nothing happens until something moves is equivalent to saying Nothing happens until something ceases to move relative to a universe already in motion. In fact Einstein did reconcile this later in his life when he stated the models cannot work without an Aether. In a general sense we can simply replace the term Aether with Dynamic EM waves signifying they were always dynamic or in motion to some extent.

Now we do not require some spooky unexplainable force to explain action at a distance nor do we need to say we cannot get something from nothing because there is no nothing anywhere. As well there is no mystery as to how a device could magically create energy from nothing because there is no creating or destroying anything only a variation of something already present.

Obviously it is not that easy to explain or prove however it sure beats believeing in magical unexplainable forces from alternate universes and action at a distance without a translation of said action.

AC

[myenergetic]

Concept is everything

Let's start with a new premise exactly the opposite to the one's we know. It is not ego-centric or self-centered but completely the opposite to how we as people think.

To do this we could simply reverse cause and effect and conceive that an object and any effects related to it must always relate directly to the space it occupies and that surrounding it. That is all energy relates to forces external to objects and acts outward/inward and vice versa.

AC

@AllCanadian
The classical mainstream mass-energy equation (Including Einstein) brought forth a universal law that an electron like all matter contains energy in its structure. A further enlargement of this law is that the electron itself is energy, where "energy" in physical terms is a state of vacuum in rotation. Even at ordinary speed of rotation of an electromagnet, The inter atomic space of the core develops velocity fields of vacuum that qualitatively act like additional charge within the rotating system and liberate orbital electrons of the core atoms. The interaction of the magnetic field and free electrons form polarities (Dipoles). It is possible to develop a machine that can rotate itself perpetually and also generate additional electrical energy. The law of conservation of charge and the law of conservation of energy are applicable within the systems confined to material interactions alone and not to the medium of space which is a dynamic entity that can rotate and create charge at ordinary speeds, and can rotate and create electricity at the speed of light.

JJ

[Allcanadian]

@myenergetic

The classical mainstream mass-energy equation (Including Einstein) brought forth a universal law that an electron like all matter contains energy in its structure. A further enlargement of this law is that the electron itself is energy, where "energy" in physical terms is a state of vacuum in rotation.

I think you may have lost me, Vacuum in rotation as it relates to energy would seem to be a contradiction. It is like saying if I have a volume of nothing and if I set it in rotation then it must have energy inherent in it. The problem I see here is that undefined variables which are imparted with physical properties leads to an epic amount of confusion. However if we could define exactly what this Vacuum is, why it is, how it acts in most every case and how it relates to everything else then we may have something useful to work with.

Even at ordinary speed of rotation of an electromagnet, The inter atomic space of the core develops velocity fields of vacuum that qualitatively act like additional charge within the rotating system and liberate orbital electrons of the core atoms. The interaction of the magnetic field and free electrons form polarities (Dipoles). It is possible to develop a machine that can rotate itself perpetually and also generate additional electrical energy. The law of conservation of charge and the law of conservation of energy are applicable within the systems confined to material interactions alone and not to the medium of space which is a dynamic entity that can rotate and create charge at ordinary speeds, and can rotate and create electricity at the speed of light.

I think I believe you but I'm not sure I understood a word you said. If I have this correct then all I have to do is just rotate the vacuum so it acts like charge in rotation forming dipoles and I'm all set. Sweet!, my wife has a vacuum and I could duct tape that puppy to a turntable and probably power my whole freaking house.

The only problem I see with this is that there are a few variable not clearly defined such as Vacuum, matter, mass-energy, Energy, Vacuum in rotation, inter atomic space, velocity fields, charge, electrons, polarities, dipoles and the medium of space.

On a more serious note, I understand what your getting at and appreciate the input but the lack of clarity is confusing as hell to the other 99% of the population. I'm looking for clarity, that is my goal, to clearly define what is happening, where it is happening and why in terms anyone could understand. I also understand this is impossibly improbable however stranger things have happened and if a person is going to dream then dream big.

AC

[myenergetic]

Concept is everything as far as I am concerned

@myenergetic


I think you may have lost me, Vacuum in rotation as it relates to energy would seem to be a contradiction. It is like saying if I have a volume of nothing and if I set it in rotation then it must have energy inherent in it. The problem I see here is that undefined variables which are imparted with physical properties leads to an epic amount of confusion. However if we could define exactly what this Vacuum is, why it is, how it acts in most every case and how it relates to everything else then we may have something useful to work with.



I think I believe you but I'm not sure I understood a word you said. If I have this correct then all I have to do is just rotate the vacuum so it acts like charge in rotation forming dipoles and I'm all set. Sweet!, my wife has a vacuum and I could duct tape that puppy to a turntable and probably power my whole freaking house.

The only problem I see with this is that there are a few variable not clearly defined such as Vacuum, matter, mass-energy, Energy, Vacuum in rotation, inter atomic space, velocity fields, charge, electrons, polarities, dipoles and the medium of space.

On a more serious note, I understand what your getting at and appreciate the input but the lack of clarity is confusing as hell to the other 99% of the population. I'm looking for clarity, that is my goal, to clearly define what is happening, where it is happening and why in terms anyone could understand. I also understand this is impossibly improbable however stranger things have happened and if a person is going to dream then dream big.

AC

@Allcanadian

Following your line of thought:

First thing is first

Quote”,

I understand what you’re getting at and appreciate the input but the lack of clarity is confusing as hell to the other 99% of the population”

To avoid the luck of clarity on the proposed definition lets clarify things

Quote”

E is an Electromotive force and M a Magnetomotive force and all that is external to these forces tied to objects must relate to Electrodynamic(EM) forces. An object can be regarded as matter in whatever form it may take with no regard to it's size

”

1, Let’s consider only the potential electromagnetic fields for now; to be more precise:
Potential are the fields in which the electric intensity E_potential, and the magnetic intensity B_potential are inversely proportional to the second power of the distance from the generating electric charges, while in the radiation fields of the electric intensity, E_radiation and the magnetic intensity, B_radiation are inversely proportional to the first power of this distance being always equal to one another and mutually perpendicular.

2,The potential fields depend on the positions of the charges and their velocities at the moment of observation, t_0 while the radiation fields depend on the positions of the charges and their accelerations at the advanced moment, t' = t_0 - r/c, where r is the distance from the charge generating the field to the reference point.

Do this make any sense? hope so now

3, The energy and momentum densities of the potential fields are null (in other words Static)

4, While the energy and momentum densities of the radiation fields are different from zero (In other words Dynamic)

ε=(E_rad^2+B_rad^2)/4π
Π=(1/4πC) E_rad B_rad n Where n is the unit vector along the direction of propagation of the radiation fields and Π=εn/2.08c
Do we agree on the above definitions?
JJ

[Hrothgar]

Mirrors my thoughts on flux vs field

@Allcanadian

2,The potential fields depend on the positions of the charges and their velocities at the moment of observation, t_0 while the radiation fields depend on the positions of the charges and their accelerations at the advanced moment, t' = t_0 - r/c, where r is the distance from the charge generating the field to the reference point.

JJ

Conceptually I picture the difference in Flux vs. field

When a field is generated by coils the lines have to jump from winding to winding gaining angular trajectory to achieve an orbit around said coil. This orbit or angular momentum translates into the Amps, Voltage as well as the other familiar traits. A field can be inducted to a coil by passing the flux of a magnet by the coil at an angle but, this is a strong arm of an orbital function and not a direct injection of flux. In fact almost all of the flux from the magnet is ineffectual as the energy gained is from change in the potential of the coil and that can achieved in but a single magnetic moment i.e. less than a pica-second. however the existing mechanic is more analogue effecting small changes as the the magnet moves.

Where as Flux from a magnet injected into a M.E.G. (for instance) directly is concentrated, and lacks an established orbital propensity. Except for any that may possibly be inherited from influence of the switching coil and specific winding eccentricity. Without established potentials, design of coils capable of translating the flux into a set output of electricity become far too dynamic under current design. I believe at least two solutions exist to the flux dilemma. Either redesign coils that only deal with flux collection or establish an orbital potential for the injection to interact.

[erfinder]

Resonance

Text books do a terrible job at describing what resonance is, that which has been stated is a description of a phenomena at best, there is no definition...in my opinion. Its been shown what conditions need to be established for resonance to manifest, and what it takes to maintain this condition. I don't know about you but I would like to know how the energy is moving inside of the LC, how energy if it can be called that is translated between L and C. I personally believe that anyone reading this can demonstrate how the energy is moving from L to C, however, how many can demonstrate the movement from C to L?

If we can find how the energy moves without impedance inside an LC, and can establish those conditions readily....who needs a super conductor...or a negative resistance? Would we need potentials which can overcome any impedance, and currents which do the same? If so, how do we generate such things?

Heretical thoughts........



Regards

[barbosi]

Text books do a terrible job at describing what resonance is, that which has been stated is a description of a phenomena at best, there is no definition...in my opinion. Its been shown what conditions need to be established for resonance to manifest, and what it takes to maintain this condition. I don't know about you but I would like to know how the energy is moving inside of the LC, how energy if it can be called that is translated between L and C. I personally believe that anyone reading this can demonstrate how the energy is moving from L to C, however, how many can demonstrate the movement from C to L?

If we can find how the energy moves without impedance inside an LC, and can establish those conditions readily....who needs a super conductor...or a negative resistance? Would we need potentials which can overcome any impedance, and currents which do the same? If so, how do we generate such things?

Heretical thoughts........



Regards

These are not heretical thoughts although I believe the consequences might be fearful. What are we going to do with tremendous potentials and how could we control the destructive currents.

As my personal belief that an LC circuit is like a "molecule" for any analogy to a mechanic system, this will be similar to no friction (super conductor) and allcanadian will not need magnets in his riddle setup

Now, regarding on how the energy moves inside an LC (not necessarily without impedance), I have to admit I cannot demonstrate how the energy is moving from L to C, nor demonstrate the movement from C to L. I know the text book description but I never thought of a setup to demonstrate these movements. Moreover, if a charged C will discharge into a coil Leedskalnin PMH style... Damn,,,, wait, with a diode maybe... Demonstrate you say? Surely, otherwise it will be a belief system.

Thought provoking, thank you for that, and you too allcanadian for opening the topic. I feel the same energizing joy when I meet a great idea.

[Allcanadian]

@Erfinder

Text books do a terrible job at describing what resonance is, that which has been stated is a description of a phenomena at best, there is no definition...in my opinion. Its been shown what conditions need to be established for resonance to manifest, and what it takes to maintain this condition. I don't know about you but I would like to know how the energy is moving inside of the LC, how energy if it can be called that is translated between L and C. I personally believe that anyone reading this can demonstrate how the energy is moving from L to C, however, how many can demonstrate the movement from C to L?

I like to view things from the perspective of mechanical equivalents which is most likely a result of reading all those damn Tesla lectures. As well I believe it has merit simply because we can disregard 99% of the confusing terminology most people use. In which case almost everything converges on a few simple terms, Objects(matter), Fields(forces), Time and Distance. Imagine that, if we could take the standard textbooks with all the known phenomena and hundreds upon hundreds of confusing terms and reduce it to four simple terms applied in a universal way.

Now imagine that nothing we know is true, what we see is distorted by colors, ambient light and textures. It is a lie because the lens of the eye sees everything upside down and the mind "learns" to correct this defect over time. The sense of touch is a lie, the pressure acts on nerve endings which is transmitted as an electrical signal to the brain effecting the firing of electrical signals between neurons. Did we actually "feel" something or is it the equivalent of a pressure switch which transmits an electrical signal to a logic device. How can we feel something if the feeling was converted to a simple electrical signal for 99% of it's journey?.

It is an odd thing that we know we are simply a form of organic machinery dictated by the same forces external to us but we feel like more. We intuitively know we are more than just the simple sum of our parts and yet we cannot conceive that this could apply to anything external to us. It is no wonder our world makes no sense because we have literally no idea what we are or how we relate to everything else.

In any case I do not believe we can take ourselves out of the equation, it is a mistake, because everything we know starts and ends with the human mind. We dictate our own perception of reality which in turn dictates what we do with it in reality. In fact my greatest insights have come from ignoring everyone and their thoughts and simply trying to understand my own. I think we already know the answers were just in denial, our mind will not let us accept it.
In my strange little world everything gets less complicated not more, lol.

AC

[erfinder]

Hi Barbosi,

Its been a long time, I hope all is well with you and yours!

These are not heretical thoughts although I believe the consequences might be fearful. What are we going to do with tremendous potentials and how could we control the destructive currents.

Fear of high potentials and currents is unjustified. The potentials will be high, (currents too when the mechanism is found) however, well within the limits set by the devices we design and construct to conduct these forces (should be noted that these energies are more than likely not going to move along the conductor as they do now, mode of travel will more than likely be closer to what Tesla describes). It is common knowledge that IGBT's and Mosfets can be configured into high voltage high current arrays. Do not fear for the switch, it will be able to handle the currents and potentials, think about it....you already know how to deal with the potentials!

As my personal belief that an LC circuit is like a "molecule" for any analogy to a mechanic system, this will be similar to no friction (super conductor) and allcanadian will not need magnets in his riddle setup

I am not qualified to say what a molecule looks like or behaves like. As for my present stance on the subject, I have come to view LC as spatial energy storage mechanism. Energy stored up in one half of this two part mechanism is discharged into the other. Understanding this mechanism is key, once we do we come to the realization that there are no flux lines, (mentioned by AC) all is but a displacement of something that is already there, the displacement mechanism gives rise to the illusion of the lines. Isn't it interesting that we are told that cutting lines is what causes potentials to be induced, they tell us this and in doing so drop the spatial relationship. What is happening to the inductance when the so called lines are cutting the inductor? In the same light, whats happening to the capacitance?

What happens when we change our view from change in flux to change in inductance?

Now, regarding on how the energy moves inside an LC (not necessarily without impedance), I have to admit I cannot demonstrate how the energy is moving from L to C, nor demonstrate the movement from C to L. I know the text book description but I never thought of a setup to demonstrate these movements. Moreover, if a charged C will discharge into a coil Leedskalnin PMH style... Damn,,,, wait, with a diode maybe... Demonstrate you say? Surely, otherwise it will be a belief system.

As the energy is not part of our dimension proper, and dimension is probably not the proper term to use, impedance takes on a new meaning, and would not apply as we presently use the term. Sure there will be opposition, however the nature of this opposition we can only speculate at. Transient potentials like those in our pulse motor circuits raise its own potential to overcome any opposition that it encounters. Here impedance as we know it goes out the window, for here we have a potential which is oblivious to the impedance set before it.

As for you not being able to demonstrate how energy is moving from L to C, our present experimentation with pulse motors is a testament to the fact that you and everyone else does indeed have it within your means to demonstrate this. One need not look any further than the transient phenomena associated with a transitioning switch in a circuit carrying current. I am "suggesting" and by no means claiming that energy is moving from one storage mechanism into another, in this particular example, from the inductive into the capacitive, L to C respectively. This "high emf" as Tesla called it is suitable for charging capacitors. Why would he say that? Was he trying to tell us something? He wouldn't be the hero of this drama if he wasn't.

C to L is the monster you have to attack now. If we can find the mechanism which allows us to generate a current which overcomes the opposition provided by an inductance, we officially earned every watt or watt equivalent that comes out of that effort. The first step in this direction is establishing a foundation. The flux line concept is flawed in my opinion, and must be replaced (not by mainstream, it must take place on the personal level we either want to spend the rest of our lives trying to verify that which has been designed to have us chasing our tails, or we listen to Nature, and those men and women who knew her best) with something that reflects whats really taking place, and is all encompassing, something which supports the idea of work being done through the mechanism of changing in potentials.

Thought provoking, thank you for that, and you too allcanadian for opening the topic. I feel the same energizing joy when I meet a great idea.

I am glad it tickled your fancy a bit. We are closer to the truth than we could possibly imagine...being in it, we are blinded by it till that day we realize we are one with it, not parts of it, the whole of it. Centered from within, and controlled from without by truth!

Food for thought......

Regards