I have seen a possible (read probable) flaw in this DC induction. As the electrons in the faster section are more pancaked, there is a reduced side field, which means that there would be an increased longitudinal force outside of the wire pushing against the bend created by the acceleration, the 2 effects would cancel perhaps entirely.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 6:32 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >
