Magnetic Field "Space Coupling" Concepts (Joe Newman, Paul Babcock, etc.)

[kmarinas86]

Is there a quantitative difference between:

The electrical energy generated by a magnet moving relative to a conductor, and the work against the relative motion between the magnet and the conductor?

And if so, what is that difference, and why is that difference usually small?

There are actually two different definitions for the force on a magnetic dipole. One is more general than the other.

Version one: A directional derivative



Source: http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.8.html (Hermann A. Haus)

Version two: Gradient of a Dot Product



Source: Force on a Magnetic Dipole

They are mathematically different in a very important sense. See "The Gradient and Directional Derivative" at:

The Gradient and Directional Derivative

Here is a PDF presentation that highlights the difference between these two forces (see slide 11 of 19):

http://ictwiki.iitk.ernet.in/wiki/im...ic_Dipoles.pdf

Here is another web page highlighting the difference between these two forces:

https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...dipole.210771/

The difference between these two force terms is using some vector relation m×(∇×⃗B). But this only vanishes if the magnetic dipole moment is parallel to the curl of B or B itself is rotationless.

The curl of the magnetic field ∇×⃗B appears in Maxwell's Equations and is due to contributions from both conduction current and displacement current. A rotating magnet generates changing electric fields and therefore displacement current. I would therefore argue that the part of the force involving the cross product of the magnetic moment m or μ and the curl of the magnetic field ∇×⃗B constitutes a force on the electrodynamic field itself. This condition where a magnetic dipole is at right angles to a changing electric field. This is associated with the partial time derivative of the electromagnetic field momentum (considering changes of the electric field only). One only has to look at the work of good ol' Prof. Haus (the same guy who educated Randell Mills on electromagnetic theory). Observe the paragraphs before and after equation 24 at:

http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.8.html

The analogy between the polarization and magnetization was emphasized by Prof. L. J. Chu[2], who taught the introductory electrical engineering course in electromagnetism at MIT in the fifties. He derived the force law for moving magnetic charges, of which (21) is the special case for a stationary charge. His approach was soon criticized by Tellegen[3], who pointed out that the accepted model of magnetization is that of current loops being the cause of magnetization. While this in itself would not render the magnetic charge model invalid, Tellegen pointed out that the force computed from (23) in a dynamic field does not lead to (22), but to



Because the force is different depending upon whether one uses the magnetic charge model or the circulating current model for the magnetic dipole, so his reasoning went, and because the circulating current model is the physically correct one, the magnetic charge model is incorrect. The issue was finally settled[4] when it was shown that the force (24) as computed by Tellegen was incorrect. Equation (23) assumes that i could be described as constant around the current loop and pulled out from under the integral. However, in a time-varying electric field, the charges induced in the loop cause a current whose contribution precisely cancels the second term in (24). Thus, both models lead to the same force on a magnetic dipole and it is legitimate to use either model. The magnetic model has the advantage that a stationary dipole contains no "moving parts," while the current model does contain moving charges. Hence the circulating current formalism is by necessity more complicated and more likely to lead to error.

Now consider what is stated in the following page of Prof. Haus' online book:

http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.9.html

Given that the magnetizable material is made up of microscopic dipoles, each experiencing a force of the nature of (11.8.22), and that the magnetization density M is the number of these per unit volume multiplied by m, it follows from the arguments of the preceding section that the force density due to magnetization is



This is sometimes called the Kelvin magnetization force density.

So let's say that is indeed the force on a magnetic dipole.

Notice that when a magnet moves through space, the following does not necessarily have a component along the velocity:



So therefore in principle, there can be torque applied to a magnet over some angle of the magnets' rotation without implying that this dot product changes. One traditional way is to have a rotating applied magnetic field. However, it is possible for this to happen for a magnet simultaneously translating and rotating through a non-uniform magnetic field.

Enter a new development, the S.H.O. Drive:

http://sho.wiki/3d

http://sho.wiki/3d/simple

http://sho.wiki/3d/advanced

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QjaY7ZurtM[/VIDEO]

Links to earlier postings can be found at:

http://overunity.com/16839/s-h-o-dri...797/#msg490797

So if represents the force on a magnet, then what does represent? I submit to you that it represents the energy induced via electromagnetic induction per incremental displacement w.r.t. to the sources of applied fields. So depending on the velocity between the sources of magnetic moment m or magnetization field M and magnetic flux density B or applied field H, which considers material/Langrangian derivatives (rather than the local/Eulerian kind), we may have positive changes in induced energy (i.e. accumulation of electrical energy), or we may have negative changes in induced energy (i.e. reduction of electrical energy). The evidence for this can be found in the Marinov Generator experiments:

http://overunity.com/14691/the-marin...177/#msg405177

Finally here is a paper looking at the math behind the Marinov Generator. This takes an abitrary current loop and gives the formula for its magnetic vector potential (A) field at any point. Then for a charge that is accelerated at that point the impulse voltage induced into the loop, hence the energy taken from the current source during that impulse, is given. It is shown that this energy then resides at the charge in the form of a potential energy associated with its canonical momentum derived from the A field. That potential energy is released in the form of kinetic energy when the charge moves out of the A field. The energy balance shows that there is no OU in this situation, the final kinetic energy of the moving charge is all accounted for, but does include the energy taken from the current source. When the current loop is replaced by a permanent magnet there is apparent OU because the kinetic energy now includes that which comes from the atomic current loops, the electron spins.

* On Charge Movement through a Magnetic Vector Potential Fie….pdf (83.88 kB - downloaded 231 times.)

http://overunity.com/14691/the-marin...attach/139032/

Now what does this have to do with "Space-Coupling" of magnetic fields? Observe the following page:



Note the statement: "However the gyroscopic particles comprising the magnetic fields of both the 100 lb. rotating magnet and the 4,200 lb. coil would react with one another as desired and designed by me."

The force responsible is the magnetic tension force.

The magnetic tension force is a restoring force (SI unit: Pa·m−1) that acts to straighten bent magnetic field lines. It equals:



It is analogous to rubber bands and their restoring force. The force is directed antiradially. Although magnetic tension is referred to as a force, it is actually a pressure gradient (Pa m−1) which is also a force density (N m−3).

It's better to use a non-Wikipedia source, and so there is:

http://www-solar.mcs.st-andrews.ac.u...r2/node15.html

Hence, the Lorentz force may be expressed in the form


The first term represents the effect of a tension of magnitude $B^{2}/\mu $ directed parallel to ${\bf B}$. This force appears whenever the magnetic field lines are curved. The second term represents the effect of a magnetic pressure of magnitude $B^{2}/2 \mu $ per unit area that is isotropic.

To clarify the above, consider what happens when you consider the force density at a location where the current density j is equal to 0, such as large hollow volumes inside a Newman Machine (or for that matter, a S.H.O. Drive). The left side of the equation vanishes for much of the volume, where the second term on the right can be moved to the other side (with opposite sign of course), corresponding to the description in the Wikipedia article. This is the condition where "the pressure force balances the tension force so that the Lorentz force is identically zero." As you can see, this result corresponds to version one (per the beginning of this post) of the magnetic force on a dipole (Source: http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/ch.../box-11.37.gif).

Now observe my recent animation:

http://sho.wiki/3d/advanced

May the Force with be you!

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QjaY7ZurtM[/VIDEO][VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIaIYEAe7mo[/VIDEO]

[BroMikey]

we are god's

Science of the mind. The GOD particle

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUFibMuDBD4[/VIDEO]

[kmarinas86]

Now what does this have to do with "Space-Coupling" of magnetic fields? Observe the following page:



Note the statement: "However the gyroscopic particles comprising the magnetic fields of both the 100 lb. rotating magnet and the 4,200 lb. coil would react with one another as desired and designed by me."

The force responsible is the magnetic tension force.

The magnetic tension force is a restoring force (SI unit: Pa·m−1) that acts to straighten bent magnetic field lines. It equals:



It is analogous to rubber bands and their restoring force. The force is directed antiradially. Although magnetic tension is referred to as a force, it is actually a pressure gradient (Pa m−1) which is also a force density (N m−3).

It's better to use a non-Wikipedia source, and so there is:

The Lorentz Force - Magnetic Pressure and Tension

Hence, the Lorentz force may be expressed in the form


The first term represents the effect of a tension of magnitude $B^{2}/\mu $ directed parallel to ${\bf B}$. This force appears whenever the magnetic field lines are curved. The second term represents the effect of a magnetic pressure of magnitude $B^{2}/2 \mu $ per unit area that is isotropic.

To clarify the above, consider what happens when you consider the force density at a location where the current density j is equal to 0, such as large hollow volumes inside a Newman Machine (or for that matter, a S.H.O. Drive). The left side of the equation vanishes for much of the volume, where the second term on the right can be moved to the other side (with opposite sign of course), corresponding to the description in the Wikipedia article. This is the condition where "the pressure force balances the tension force so that the Lorentz force is identically zero." As you can see, this result corresponds to version one (per the beginning of this post) of the magnetic force on a dipole (Source: http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/ch.../box-11.37.gif).

We can also consider the case where all three terms are non-zero. If the magnetic tension force was our input force, then the sum of the Lorentz force on charges and the magnetic pressure force on the fields would be the output force. Once we understand that there are three forces here, not two, it is easy to see how one may engineer a system where two forces thought to be equal and opposite might not be equal and opposite. p=mv+eA not p=mv. E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 not E=mc^2. A=L+E not A=L. etc. Space symmetry per Emmy Noether's theorem = Momentum Conservation. Time symmetry per Emmy Noether's theorem = Energy Conservation. Space and Time make Space-Time, not just time. 3D+1D, not just 3D. (ϕ,A) not just ϕ. Potential Energy and Potential Momentum. "Obvious Work" [force*distance] and "Unobvious Work" [force*time]. c^2=a^2+b^2. mc^2 = (1/2)mc^2+(1/2)mc^2. (xy)' = xy' + x'y. One term on the left, two terms on the right. Trinity, uniting monism and duality.

The result could not be clearer. This is how we shall defeat "Lenz' law". Apply forces on electromagnetic field entities which are inertially seperate from charged particles and transferring energy between these fields and the matter. The inertia of these electromagnetic field entities is nothing more than the result of energy of the mutual inductance and mutual capacitance a system of masses has with respect to the greater extent of the "open system" that is the universe. These intermasses bear the inertia associated with energy coupling of separate charges.

So, as per the line of thought in network theory, the number of intermasses scales with the square of the number of charges, because there is an intermass between any pair of charges, associated with the electric scalar potential ϕ in the Coulomb gauge, and an intermomentum between any pair of charges based on the magnetic vector potential A in the Coulomb gauge. I would argue that all electromagnetic radiation is radiation directed toward other charges. In this way all momentum is the product mass and velocity if and only if we include these intermasses. "Forces" would be instantaneous only for the change in mass, but velocity changes associated with change of momentum would propagate only at the speed of electromagnetic radiation, and would be better represented by treating electromagnetic momentum using the vector potential in the Lorenz gauge. The difference between the electromagnetic momentum in the Coulomb gauge vs. the Lorenz gauge is nothing more than the photon electromagnetic momentum. In this sense, photons that are absorbed and/or emitted merely serve to substitute the change of mass with a change in velocity, or to convert electromagnetic momentum (a momentum of an intermass) to the momentum of a charged particle. Propagating photons in this view serve nothing more as "adjusting entries" to the balance sheet of energy conservation accountancy, and all photons are destined for arrival onto some other charge. There is no "heat death" for the entire universe and photons are not emitted in random directions - they only seem that way because the universe as a whole has "destination charges" in all directions, and there is no real way to predict exactly which charge will capture that photon.

Now, if we want a stable, well-behaving device (rather than some finicky Searl Effect Generator) we just need the forces to cancel out and simply output a net torque at some appreciable speed. In other words, we simply need to deflect the kinetic energy of electrons of the magnet. This would reduce the orbital energy of electrons and cause them to fall closer to the positive nuclei of atoms, regaining kinetic energy through conversion of electric potential energy. In order for the orbital energy to restore to higher levels, one may argue that sub-photon EM coupling in the form of magnon and phonon interactions may supply energy to maintain the balance between subatomic particles of matter, as has been suggested by George J Bugh of Vasant Corporation. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=Tj_Lm9qWckwC