--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How come the Aussies have the best explanations for > things: > > http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~dnj/teaching/160mag/160mag.htm > > "The imbalance in the linear charge densities > between the positive > metal ions and the moving electrons, measured in the > reference frame of > the moving charge, is a result of the Lorentz > contraction due to the > relative motions of the nearby charged particle, the > electrons flowing > in the wire and the metal ions. This relativistic > effect is perhaps > most familiar to us when applied to fast moving > objects. Let us see how > fast the electrons are moving in a typical current > carrying wire. In a > copper wire the density of copper atoms is about > 8.5x10^22 atoms per > cubic centimetre, and hence the density of free > electrons is about the > same. In a copper wire with a cross sectional area > of 1 square > millimetre and carrying a current of 10 Amps the > formula for v given > above shows that the electron velocity is only 0.7 > millimetres per > second. This is an extremely small velocity! The > Lorentz contraction > for such a small velocity differs from 1 by only > 3x10^-24. This > unimaginably small contraction is nevertheless > sufficient to cause a > slight imbalance in the positive and negative charge > densities of the > wire that causes moving charged particles to feel a > magnetic force. " > > Terry Concerning the relativity of a unpaired ferromagnetic electron spin and its macroscopic spin in space as a larger collection of such spins, one only needs to rotate an unenergized electromagnet using a ferrous material for its core, and a gyroscopic reaction force will act on these unpaired electron spins. This causes the macroscopic (ferrous) piece in rotational spin to emit magnetism. The unpaired electron spins in the wrong angle of spin are "gyroscopically forced" to collectively sum to show a magnetic effect whereby the random collection of angled spins are "tilted" by the gyroscopic effect so that a large collection of total spins will be in the same angle thus establishing magnetism by ferromagnetic macroscopic spin alone. The best example of this is to take an AC car alternator attached to a motive source, and to note the stator output with loads attached WITHOUT the field being energized by an exterior EMF. The example I have worked with; ( a small Delco Remy model with diodes removed) has a 7 pole face rotor meaning that 7 cycles will be induced on the stator windings for every rotation of the field pole faces. For a spin establishing 480 hz I can obtain at least a one amp short on two phases, and about .75 A on all three phases. The open circuit voltage on the phases will be just below 2 volts. Unfortunately one has to be a sort of detective to determine whether other sources would be responsible for this performance. Since the stator windings actually see a change of inductance with the rotation of the pole faces vs air gap and field poles circulating under the stator ring; the stator windings also see a varying inductance over time, making the device a sort of parametric generator. Also the argument of "remanent magnetism" of the pole faces is used to explain away these stator output effects. But experimentation can dispell some of these myths. In order to make the alternator output ZERO power; a DC current can be sent through the field that will be opposite to the magnetic field caused by rotational magnetism alone. Here we are actually sending power in the device in the form of field magnetism, to cause the device to quit emitting power on the stator windings. To do this we have essentially "demagnetised" the field rotor to cancel the magnetism created by rotation. However the moment this cancelling effect is removed, the field once again emits its rotational magnetism, which in turn emits power from the stator windings. Yes, incredibly it is necessary for field energy to be sent in to stop the alternator from displaying power output. Dr. Wrongway would be impressed. But the Word "Remanent Magnetism" implies something being remembered as a past magnetic influence. Here the past magnetic effect was one of demagnetisation, so why does magnetism resume itself after its cause of demagnetisation is removed? This more or less detroys the remanent magnetism argument, but not completely. If we continue in magnetising the field in the wrong direction beyond that which cancels the rotational magnetism effect, so that once again after crossing the zero point of stator output cancellation, we once again succeed in producing a (highly inneffient)power output, if the power to the field is again reduced to the point where it formerely produced zero output on the stator windings, now we find this to be untrue; by magnetising the field in the wrong rotational direction, this Dr. Wrongway method has produced an effect whereby the SPIN itself remembers its past effect of magnetisation. The spin essentially maintains, Or "remembers" the magnetic effect superimposed upon it previously in time. The most fascinating aspect of rotational magnetism is that it can be enhanced in exactly the same way jet turbine technology was developed, by using a controlled stator output/input field feedback loop. Any volume of field magnetism necessary for operation of the alternator within its operational parameters can be secured by this method, also noted in literature as the self energized field. In a nutshell any volume of field magnetism within operational parameters can be created by spin rotation alone. Sincerely HDN Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
