I read the paper and indeed it hit on something I have puzzeled on, wanted to know and may have even asked this list:
*Now, if the circle is a rotating conductor, then the motion of charges is relative. If the current i is in the direction of conductor rotation, then the electron motion is actually to the rear. The principle conduction then, as seen relativistic ally speaking, is by the nuclei. If the current is reversed, then the electrons are the faster charge carriers. The effect is non-linear with velocity. Therefore you get a big boost in the subject nonconservative field by rotating the conductor.* This is the same thought I had and it would have implications for homopolar motor/gens energized by electromagnets for sure. I didn't expect it to be linear with speed but didn't honestly know how to find out, but I did finally reason that no one has found that by giving electromagnets a twist that their field strength suddenly grows. So anyone know if this is genuinely verified experimentally? On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:35 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Jun 27, 2009, at 9:14 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Sure, I have a view. If you feel the idea has merit I think you should >>> more fully write up your idea, add any diagrams that might be relevant, and >>> include any formulas or computations you think are relevant, and post it on >>> your web site for posterity. Better yet would be to publish. >>> >>> I have no site, and no interest in publishing. >>> >> >> No interest in experimenting either? If so, then what's left besides >> idle talk? > > > Well as I said this one is more theoretical to me mainly because I consider > it small stuff even if it worked. > The reason I feel this is worthy of "idle" talk is because with mere talk I > believe we can establish that one of 2 very compelling possibilities must be > true. > > Either magnetic fields are the result of relative motion in which case we > have creation of energy in an engineerable solid state device that can be > modeled before being built, no mysteries. > > OR they aren't and Special Relativity is wrong which proves that not all > frames are created equal which essentially proves an aether of some type. > > >> >> >> I do have an interest in discussion. >>> >> >> I avoid what I think are likely to be open ended discussions these days >> because I do not have time for them. >> > > It does not seem open ended to me, Ok maybe we don't know which end is > correct but both are compelling paradigm shifting conclusions and while it > seems unlikely anyone is going to test it it is able to be tried, it's not > especially elaborate just beyond me. > >> >> >> >>> Not to mention since the idea is already presented with diagrams and math >>> and a claimed replication by this "nayado" then any claims I make a decade >>> after his website appeared will be redundant and appear I am trying to take >>> credit for an idea that wasn't mine. (there may be a record pre-dating his >>> site on vort but who cares) >>> >>> I don't see how any of the material of yours you reference (assuming it >>> is the material you last posted in this thread) is relevant to the "vortex >>> balls" thread >>> >>> Only to the point that understanding either involves appreciating the >>> fact that magnetic fields are somewhat relative. >>> >> >> >> Only in the most general sense as far as I can see. I don't see where you >> applied anything to the Marinov motor. It appears to me your post is just >> way out in left field. I see no way to comment with the "vortex balls" >> context at all. > > > You are right, another thread as you have started is a good idea. > Though weather magnetic fields are created by relative motion > or absolute motion is plainly relevant in both cases at least potentially. > Any study into the mechanics of electrodynamic forces would seem to me to > be on topic. > > It is a problem that requires similar electrodynamic analysis. > >> > > >> >> >> I'll start a new thread on it in a day or 2 with the improvements you >>> suggest. >>> >> >> You might want to take a look at: >> >> http://www.geoc ities.com/nayado/ [note - fill in any spaces in this >> URL] > > > I already posted that link of course, yes he had the idea too (or stole it > from me) though in all likely hood a case of parallel idea development. I > did mention it online years before that site appeared. > > >> >> Also, there are many physics books that deal with special relativity (not >> just the notion that all motion is relative) and why the magnetic field is >> an artifact of the electrostatic field. > > > Yes, I fully understand how magnetic fields are an artifact of > electrostatic fields and when I figured it out I thought I had made a > discovery, turns out I just had not read deeply enough to know that it was > conventional knowledge. > >> >> >> I've done some not resolved work in the relative charge motion arena >> myself. One example: >> >> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SR-CircleCoil.pdf<http://mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/SR-CircleCoil.pdf> > > > Will read it, thx. > >> <http://mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/SR-CircleCoil.pdf> >> >> It is an arena for unlimited thought, discussion, and hard work. I'm far >> from eager to get involved in discussion of it at this time. > > > Fair enough. > > >> >> >> >>> , or why I should be singled out to comment. >>> >>> Simply because I know you know enough to do so, or so I believe, it's a >>> compliment. >>> >> >> >> Intentionally or not, the combined effect of posting irrelevant material >> on a thread and then calling out an individual to comment on it is less like >> that of a compliment than it is like a troll. > > > Not the intention. > Also trolling for what, an intelligent conversation on topic for the list > and related at least somewhat to the thread. > Yes, I was hopping not to be totally ignored so I pushed a little. > > I had previously given up on this list and posting in general but have > decided that maybe rather than not posting I should push to get a > conversation started, there is a wealth of off topic conversations. > > Just takes more work to get people to reply to potentially useful > conversation as I think you said in another thread. > > >
