In essence Horace you agree(d) with me, I'll take your PDF claiming a "non conservative" electrodynamic force to mean that either the model is wrong or the CoE is wrong.
Interestingly I think I can supply the answer right now! Ok, I am going to start with a conclusion. I am going to assume that if non-inductive coils had negative inductance without a HV static charge that would have been noted, of course you never know. But if we assume they don't then let's look at these 2 facts. First we have the electrons feeling the magnetic field from the protons in it's wire creating inductance. But it also sees electrons heading in the opposite direction, these electrons are going by at twice the speed. Now does twice the speed create twice the effect? * The effect is non-linear with velocity* Horace Heffner Ok, so the negative-inductive field would be enhanced, this would no longer need an especially high negative voltage to become a negative inductor. (not that I am clear on what extent this is nonlinear with velocity, electrons don't drift at very fancy speeds generally) Of course if you tended to ground the negative of circuits so that the coils are generally run at a positive voltage that could maybe cancel the effect out, also any negative inductance could be confused with some capacitance. Ok, so maybe I can't answer it right now.... On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Horace, while I don't fully understand your FE generator on page 9 of: > http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SR-CircleCoil.pdf<http://mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/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. >>> >>> >>> >> >
