I have been thinking about this a bit more. I have been doing more analysis, I have concluded that if the velocity of a charge is doubled the effective magnetic force it creates is quadrupled. I am very clear that this is so. Furthermore by doing a complete analysis I found that while this is so, if you have the previously mentioned coil with a thin and fat wire in series creating equal and opposite ampere turns you can't generate any field besides a slight motional E-field that would not be varied by velocity. I also established that rotating a coil as would occur with the rotor winding on an alternator would not lead to any change, I actually wrote this up to work it out but no one wants to read paragraphs about how Ampere was right after all.
I also tried other ideas such as charged wires but that made no difference. However drift velocity does have a real effect on the voltage generated by a homo-polar generator. And so naturally does the movement along the wire which is how a homopolar generator works. Anyway I have come up with a very interesting idea! When electrons change velocity, that change in velocity propagates in their electric field as a bend, a distortion, this bending predicts precisely the EMF that a time varying current creates. If you had wire that changed wire thickness and hence electron velocity in sections you should get a constant bend in the electric field outside those locations. This could be increased by having a multi turn coil that has thick wire sections laid over other thick sections and thin sections laid over other thin sections and critically having the transition locations laid over one another. This could increase it quite well, then it may also be possible to collect this emf in hopefully a multi-turn coil. This is as far as I am aware totally unrecognised, and yet an entirely plausible way to create a DC induction from a DC current with no moving parts or interconnections. However it could be likened possibly to a thermocouple, wonder if such a change in thickness could act like a Peliter junction? This seems like a test worth trying! BTW one option could theoretically be to take a multiturn coil of constant thickness and apply a magnetic field so as to create zones slowed by the Hall effect increasing resistance in those sections, this could still produce such an EMF although it would not be ideal. John On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Harvey Norris <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps the best issue to be noted is the spinning electromagnet > manifested as a field of a car alternator. No where do I see it mentioned, > except in my own research: that there is a correct direction for the DC > field currents to be in harmony with the rotation. This only stands to be > common sense where it comes to drift velocity, for the field rotation and > its current to be delivered from non moving slip ring contacts; one method > will deliver current in agreement with the drift velocity direction, while > the other will detract from it showing as a reduced stator voltage. There > are numerable proofs that counter the remanent magnetism and parametric > case as the cause for power output without field energization. Here is some > further scribbling of notes never sent when this subject last came up.... > > Once when I was more naive I thought about the magnetic field surrounding > a wire broken by a capacitor coupling device. As I visualized the magnetic > field due to the current, I began to think that there must be a gap or > discontinuity since no real current is flowing within the capacitor. > Between the plates there is only an electric field that is changing as > charge is being added or subtracted from the plates of the capacitor. > Now I will explain something that NO ONE has ever answered! > It even bothers the theorists who explain it away as a heating loss of > wires or something. Or they say it was lost as the magnetic field around > the wires connecting the parts. The big dummies never even considered that > it was lost as the magnetic field movement around the capacitor itself! > Thus they have not thought to put in special collectors of this lost > energy; and then reconvert that lost energy back into another capacitor. > Let me know if you think this can be done. > > I have two equal C values. I charge one up and find the joules of energy > contained in it. Now I take the other unused C value and allow one to > charge up the other to equilibrium. Now I compare the total amount of > energy contained in both parts and find only half the original amount of > energy! Where did the missing energy go to? CAN I MAKE AN ARRANGEMENT > WHEREBY MORE THEN HALF THE ENERGY MAY BE SHARED BY BOTH OF THE CAPACITORS? > > 2009 Flux Capacitor Model > http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/4138926072/ > This shows both an inductor and a water capacitor that will have the same > reactance at alternator frequency of 465 hz. Bigger things make possible > what is not feasible using smaller components. > Separately Spaced Magnetic & Electric Fields > http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/4138199465/ > > If we do the same sort of capacitor sharing of charge experiment with AC > at the resonant frequency instead of DC, we find that connecting a single > plate of the two capacitors together will cause the sender cap to loose 11% > of its charge, but in turn the remaining capacitor will be charged to 85% > of the former caps full charge value. this is done merely by having one > electric field change causing magnetic field change in the equation, and > combining this with the weaker mutual inductive sharing of the coils on a > side by side basis. > > What the theorists have failed to recognize in making this translation is > that they have not put magnetic collectors or hugh inductors around two > axial capacities. As one capacity charges the other one up to equilibrium, > the two inductors could also charge up two more caps with a one way diode > valve in the coil-cap pathway to prevent continuing recurring weaker > oscillations > > (On a changing magnetic field NOT causing a changing electric field by > spatial vicinity: radio waves would not exist in a vacuum if a vacuum was > supposed to prevent this from happening) > This of course is absolutely untrue and the best way to demonstrate the > fact is to instead use an axial capacity. Put another similar size coil on > top or around that axial capacity and look for the inductive effects of > that axial capacity. I will stretch this thought even further and have > already demonstrated it in which I called it a magnifier principle. It is > perfectly possible to demonstrate that using two identical > coils that using your axial capacitive electric field case can result in > a coil A inducing current on adjacent identical coil B, where coil B will > contain more current then the sender coil A. > http://youtu.be/ho-SUqBTrpk > Video Records from 10/21/10: This video shows the fourth coil vibration > used to show the flux capacitor principle being in excess of its source > of vibration from the 3rd coil system that has its electric field's > obtained from series resonance encased in the volume of the fourth extra > coils magnetic field, where this MAGNIFICATION of the vibration is > shown once the neon load is removed. The sequence of adding the > interphasal resonances is shown. At 8:26 in video ending we see that 1.86 > ma from the sender causes 2.41 ma on the receiver. > http://youtu.be/FAc3jQziicc > > As you can see for this to happen the extra current is undoubtably due to > the extra contribution being made by having the last inductive coil in the > chain having a changing electric field in its interior volume, so there is > actually TWO inductive forces involved here. Next I will show something > that will truly make you wonder where this led to my discovery of the > totally wireless tesla coil, in which I called this the first embodiment, > where now I have advanced up to the ninth embodiment. But in that case we > do not explain things away with an extra influence of every changing > electric field having a corresponding changing magnetic field. Now the > receiving coil can have FIVE times the current of the > sending coil. But first I still dont quite understand the results of this > experiment from the same time frame, so I will let others venture an > explanation if they would care to tread here, dont forget Tesla's warning; > Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. > http://youtu.be/EBlMvo4xwO4 > > > > Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ > > --- On *Fri, 10/5/12, MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic field > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 5, 2012, 2:56 AM > > > Just to make things even more confusing… see > > > > “Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory: > > Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?” > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0083v4.pdf > > > > Excerpt below… > > -Mark > > ------------------------- > > “In this work I will argue that the idea of electric and magnetic fields > inducing each other without the mediation of electrical charges is false > because it is not based on experimental evidence. Pure electric fields, > varying or not, are not known to produce pure magnetic fields in regions of > space where electrical charges do not exist. Neither are pure magnetic > fields known to produce, in regions of space where electrical charges do > not exist, pure electric fields. It is only through the mediation of > electric charges and currents that these phenomena can happen. I will take > excerpts from the works (mainly textbooks) > > of authors who support the present day theory and I will point out where > their argument fails.” > > > > “*What* produces radio waves is known – rapidly changing electric > currents in a conductor. But what is not known with certainty is > *how*exactly radio waves are generated from these changing electric currents, > how the waves detach themselves from the antenna and what radio waves > really are when traveling through space. These, I contend, are problems > still open for argument and will be discussed here.” > > ------------------------- > > > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:13 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic field > > > > I was pondering something and wonder if anyone here has any insight on the > subject. > > > > In a wire coil, an electric current consists of a slow movement of > electrons, the electric field from these charges though not detectable due > to the presence of the electric field from the protons, never the less > fills space both near and very very far from the wire. > > But owing to the (slow) movement of the electrons through the wire a > Lorentz contraction takes place which changing the strength and shape of > the electric field, it is now no longer neatly countered by the static > proton field and what we term a magnetic field is born. > > > > That was the long way of saying that the electron drift creates a magnetic > field due to relativistic effects, this is accepted conventional physics. > > > > Now let's say we have a circuit that consists on a battery in series with > 2 inductors also in series, one is composed of very fat wire and the other > is composed of extremely thin wire, possibly a different metal and possibly > not a metal but something with a much higher electron drift velocity, the > ideal of course would be some kind of vacuum tube where the electron > velocity could near the speed of light. > > > > Now because these 2 inductors (well, coils) are in series the same current > must flow through each, which means that the same number of electrons must > flow through each of them. > > Now magnetic fields are meant to be caused by Ampere Turns, both of these > inductors would have the same amps and could be given the same number of > turns, so both should create equal magnetic fields. > > > > This is curious for several reasons, first off the degree of pancaking > (the relativistic cause of the magnetic field) is very different and it > seems unlikely that this very real difference would lead to > no notable difference in some cases. > > Also while the coil with the high drift speed electrons would at any time > have fewer electrons making it's field I find it a little odd that it would > not have a more powerful magnetic field. > > > > The reason is that when we double the velocity of a mass we have 4 times > the energy, so if we have half the number of electrons travelling at twice > the speed (to create the same number of electrons past a point every > second, the same amps) we have still doubled the inertial energy tied up in > moving those electrons .vs the slower moving coil. (yes, electrons have > very little mass) > > > > If there is a difference, could this explain various anomalies? > > I heard once that a coil of one metal somehow created a stronger field > than the same current through the same number of turns through a copper > coil, though I forget the metal it would have had a higher drift velocity. > > I also recall someone I think on Vo long long ago saying that they could > not detect the expected magnetic field around a long flouro bulb compared > to the wiring leading up to it. > > > > There are of course many possibilities of this turning up in Tesla coils > (HV and many thin turns) and various other systems that have had reports of > unusual effects. > > > > I would assume that Ampere and the others who established this field, > established it from results primarily with copper coils of regular gauge > under mostly sustainable currents. > > How much work has been done on magnetic fields from high drift speed > currents? > > > > Of course a permanent magnet (or electromagnet with a steel core) creates > magnetic fields from various different high speed electron and proton > movements and spins so I accept that the results of a high speed magnetic > field are not likely to be very unusual. > > > > John > > > > > >
