Horace, while I don't fully understand your FE generator on page 9 of: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SR-CircleCoil.pdf
You have a similar conclusion that a conventional model allows for the creation of energy. The question then must be, is the model wrong, or is FE so straightforwardly available? Personally I believe both. At least it is an interesting conclusion to come to and i appreciate that someone who has a grasp on the math still agrees. So while it may be annoying that neither of our FE generators exist, and we don't know for a fact if they would or if the model is wrong it is to me still quite comforting that there is a huge hole with an extraordinarily promising answer either way (IMO). On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:21 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >
