The bistander thread

[dragon]

Using batteries or large capacitor banks would take quite a bit of time to see gains or losses where smaller experiments tend to bring out the reality of what's going on in short order. Some years back I did some testing with the 3 battery system ( results posted in Turions 3 battery thread ) and it really didn't pan out as well as I thought it should.

My conclusions led me in a different direction exploring various methods of manipulating energy in charged caps. I can blame Turion for the inspiration ...

[bistander]

Heavyside flow

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_current
_______________
Energy current

Energy current*is a flow of energy defined by the*Poynting vector*(E*×*H), as opposed to normal*current*(flow of*charge). It was originally postulated by*Oliver Heaviside. It is also an informal name for*Energy flux.

ExplanationEdit

"Energy current" is a somewhat informal term that is used, on occasion, to describe the process of energy transfer in situations where the transfer can usefully be viewed in terms of a flow. It is particularly used when the transfer of energy is more significant to the discussion than the process by which the energy is transferred. For instance, the flow of fuel oil in a pipeline could be considered as an energy
current, although this would not be a convenient way of visualising the fullness of the storage tanks.

The units of energy current are those of*power*(W). This is closely related to*energy flux, which is the energy transferred per unit area per unit time (measured in W/m2).

Energy current in electromagnetismEdit

A specific use of the concept of energy current was promulgated by*Oliver Heaviside*in the last quarter of the 19th century. Against heavy resistance from the engineering community,[1]*Heaviside worked out the physics of signal velocity/impedance/distortion on telegraph, telephone, and undersea cables. He invented the inductor-loaded "distortionless line" later patented by*Michael Pupin*in the USA.[2]*Building on the concept of the*Poynting vector, which describes the flow of energy in a*transverse electromagnetic wave*as the vector product of its electric and magnetic fields (E*×*H), Heaviside sought to extend this by treating the transfer of energy due to the electric current in a conductor in a similar manner. In doing so he reversed the contemporary view of current, so that the electric and magnetic fields due to the current are the "prime movers", rather than being a result of the motion of the charge in the conductor.[3]

Heaviside's approach had some adherents at the time—enough, certainly, to quarrel with the "traditionalists" in print. However, the "energy current" view presented a number of difficulties, most notably that in asserting that the energy flowed in the electric and magnetic fields around the conductor the theory is unable to explain why the charge appears to flow in the conductor. Another major flaw is that electrical science and engineering are built on solutions of*Maxwell's Equations*in which the electric current - expressed through the current-density vector*J*– is a fundamental quantity, while a so-called 'energy current' does not appear. Moreover, there are no equivalent equations describing the physical behaviour of the*Poynting vector*on which the concept of energy current is based.

After the discovery of the*electron*in 1897, the*Drude model, which describes electrical conduction in metals, was developed very quickly. By associating the somewhat abstract concept of moving charge with the rather more concrete motion of the charged electrons, the Drude model effectively deals with the traditional "charge current" and the Heaviside "energy current" views simultaneously. With this achievement of "unification", the energy current approach has largely lost favour, because in omitting the concepts related to conduction it has no direct model for (for example)*Ohm's Law. In consequence it is less convenient to use than the "traditional" charge current approach, which defines the concepts of current, voltage, resistance, etc., as commonly used for electrical work.

Poynting-flow diagrams are part of E&M engineering, transmission line theory, and antenna design, but rare in electronics texts.[4]

{edit}

Two excerpts from above which I think are important.

Another major flaw is that electrical science and engineering are built on solutions of*Maxwell's Equations*in which the electric current - expressed through the current-density vector*J*– is a fundamental quantity, while a so-called 'energy current' does not appear. Moreover, there are no equivalent equations describing the physical behaviour of the*Poynting vector*on which the concept of energy current is based.

the energy current approach has largely lost favour, because in omitting the concepts related to conduction it has no direct model for (for example)*Ohm's Law.*

[BroMikey]

My conclusions led me in a different direction exploring various methods of manipulating energy in charged caps. I can blame Turion for the inspiration ...

The answer is yes, if a cap or set of caps offers a load device a certain
voltage it consumes the same joules. Yes the curve would be the same
regardless I think. Well wait, maybe not, the 3 cap would have and ever
dropping differential where the single cap would have a constant
differential which may change the amount of work done.

Going other directions is fine but don't forget to use this principle. It is
my understanding that impulse circuits can increase gains in caps.

One guy I heard talk about it was HITBY13KW. Something about hitting
a cap at the right harmonic and frequency then also using 2 or 3 ultra
high speed diodes in series to ensure nothing comes back, cap climb
right up with the OU gains.

Like Dave has said for years about batteries, hit them on the right node
and they charge easily instead of ramming them full causing heat.

The idea that an impulse should be sent in one direction without any
back slash or reverse energy flow at the end of a cycle has been
confirmed by others such as the SERPS

[ricards]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_current
_______________
Energy current



{edit}

Two excerpts from above which I think are important.

"Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated. There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by lines of force."

-from a book by cp steinmetz

[Aaron]

No such thing as Energy Current

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_current
_______________
Energy current



{edit}

Two excerpts from above which I think are important.

It's irrelevant what lost favor for something else. The definitions are incorrect and just because different ideas "evolved" over time does not make them correct. Look at quantum physics, what an "evolution" of ideas over time, but it has put people smack dab in the dark ages of ignorance. Why do you think Heaviside lost is mind, moved granite blocks into his home as furniture, painted his fingernails pink?

Look at the Einstein world view - degenerate propaganda to sprinkle pixie dust in everyone's eyes so they have no need for the aether. That was a "scientific" evolution but it is a degeneration of logic and science. He even admitted zero confidence in his own theories around his 71st birthday in a letter. Why? Because Dayton Miller's work crashed Einstein's aether-less relativity like a house of cards. Einstein even admitted if Miller's work held up, it would indeed fall like a house of cards, which it did because Miller's work did hold up.

There is no such thing as an "energy current" - they're describing the Heaviside Flow as what it was originally thought to be with modifications of opinions over. I defined it as pure dielectricity and is what Heaviside is describing and do not have to use his own original definition. We're talking about the aether.

Poynting Flow? Bearden has the best analogy of it. Sailboats are on the sea and the Poynting component is claiming that the only wind that exists is what is hitting the sails, which is of course ludicrous.But that is exactly what those who subscribe to that belief actually are believing.

Being that the Heaviside Flow is literally a flow of polarized potential, it exists independent of the electron flow, which is the magnetic component. Being independent of it, the Heaviside Flow cannot have any power and therefore cannot be energy or exhibit energy.

JJ Thomson discovered the electron and also exclaimed "May it be of NO use to us."

"In consequence it is less convenient to use than the "traditional" charge current approach, which defines the concepts of current, voltage, resistance, etc., as commonly used for electrical work." - Bistander's wiki post

The traditional approach today is nothing more than jargon - they are abstract concepts that don't actually tell you anything about what they are. But that is all that is necessary to just build something that works and it is not required for someone to build something that works to actually understand anything about the nature of electricity. But when we do understand the nature of it, we can have less constraints in what we design.

I like the Drude gas model for practical purposes and there is a problem with the understanding of conductors. I told you before in other posts, but you're not really interested in much other than looking for evidence that preserves your beliefs.

Conductors don't conduct, they repel and insulators don't insulate, they absorb. A dielectric insulating material soaks up and absorbs dielectricity and conductors do the opposite.

If a conductor conducts, the Heavisde Flow would be all sucked into the wire and would experience nothing but drag when transmitted in common fashion and is why only an insignificantly small little sliver of it is intercepted by the copper to get the current to flow in the opposite direction. If a conductor conducts, we'd be lucky to have anything get close to 1% efficiency, which would be orders of magnitude greater than what would most likely be possible.

Insulators are the real conductors - paint some Super Corona Dope on some HV electrodes or whatever and turn it up, that insulator will soak up and conduct as much dielectricity as possible until it is saturated and anything over it's voltage pressure limit will leak right on through.

And moving over the surface of the wire vs through the wire? There is another mode of transmission that you don't know anything about where it moves through the middle of the wire without all the drag. Dollard knows of the principle and the only person I know who appears to have done it is John Bedini with his room temperature super conducting crystals that can transmit hundreds of watts using fine hair wires 30+ AWG.

Nothing I'm saying implies that Dollard or anyone else agrees with me but I can tell you that one of the two presentations he is working on, which is a sequel to Heaviside's Electromagnetic Induction and it's Propagation, will take everyone's understanding of what Heaviside was teaching to a whole other level. That was a title of Heavisides series of papers published around 1885 in The Electrician magazine over an entire year - almost 250 pages.

This video is exactly related to this subject - the book shown is NOT the same as the articles mentioned above:

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiDnheGvXRA[/VIDEO]

[bistander]

Video

Started watching the vid. Then this.

[Aaron]

ip

Started watching the vid. Then this.

Next time it happens, send me the IP address of the device you're using (search in google: what is my ip address to get it), the time and your timezone and the server team will take a look. You can pm it to me.

[bistander]

IP address

Next time it happens, send me the IP address of the device you're using (search in google: what is my ip address to get it), the time and your timezone and the server team will take a look. You can pm it to me.

Hi Aaron,

IP address sent on pm to you. Forgot to include time. It is 8:33 EST.

If this message actually posts up, then it is the best it has worked in nearly a week.

Regards,

bi

{edit}
Works pretty well.

[bistander]

My beliefs

... but you're not really interested in much other than looking for evidence that preserves your beliefs. ...

Hi Aaron,

You make some erroneous assumptions. I've had a lifetime of reinforcement or evidence which supports my beliefs in the traditional physics and electrical engineering. I am curious and observant. I have yet to see a real contradiction. I hear about such in places like this and come here to see evidence. All I see so far are opinions and unsupported claims. But in this process, I do learn some new things and relearn some old things.

Thanks for elaborating on your take.

I've been having pretty good luck so today composing and posting.

Regards,

bi

[NROC]

Bistander

Youu soo fuuunnaay bistander.

I love how observant you are....

[bistander]

Add something pertinent to the discussion?

Youu soo fuuunnaay bistander.

I love how observant you are....

So, what is your opinion? Is energy conserved or is energy destroyed and created?

[Turion]

Lol

bi,
As a card carrying member of the energy police you should know energy cannot be created or destroyed. We must obey the law. Except when we don’t.

[BroMikey]

bi,
As a card carrying member of the energy police you should know energy cannot be created or destroyed. We must obey the law. Except when we don’t.

Here start him out on this free energy bird Sumpin ta play with..

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf2meBi3eH8[/VIDEO]

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9v9Dn4ildo[/VIDEO]

[Turion]

Info

We are all in this together. The secrets of free energy have been hidden from all of us. Possibly deliberately, but perhaps not. This stuff is too dang important to let petty differences get in the way. We have to keep pushing forward until this is all mainstreamed.

You would do well to listen, but if you choose not to it doesn’t matter. The work will go forward. People like NROC are the next generation of experimentor. They have the degrees and education I could only dream about having, and they can look at what we have to see from a whole new perspective whether we are full of crap or not.

bi, I wish you knew how absolutely incorrect you are about me and my efforts on this forum. But some day soon you will know. I hope you are ashamed of yourself when that day comes.

[NROC]

I hope you are ashamed of yourself when that day comes.

LOL, that made me laugh.