Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

# New Book

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 496352
• Total Topics: 14607
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 249
• Total: 253

### Author Topic: Simplifying what we have observed  (Read 17130 times)

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2017, 08:58:17 PM »
This may be something you already understood
Maybe not, but it is important to clarify the difference
Between a measured voltage potential
And a measured charge potential ( which is often called volts or kilovolts)
These two things should not be confused.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2017, 08:58:17 PM »

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2017, 11:05:42 PM »
By stating that you must understand what you are measuring,, think about it,, what you are doing is defining and describing not what you are measuring but the constraints.

So long as this is understood then all will understand the same, however, to understand that and then try and exclude other interactions whether observed or not is false.

If I ONLY look at THIS change WHILE doing THIS,, is what should be used at all times since it is not an apparent understanding.

Don't confuse the medium with a difference in potential within the medium.

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2017, 03:43:29 PM »
Simple experiment, whether you build it or just think about it.

A coil and a PM, with one mounted to a rotating disc and the other stationary.

Connect a current meter up to the coil and with the magnet as far away from the coil as possible with your construction,, call this point A, then when the magnet and coil are as close as they can be with your construction,, call this point B.

Rotate the disc at a fast enough RPM so your current meter will show you something.

Double that RPM and see what the current meter shows, then double it again and see what it shows.

To keep the observations simple then, what I observe is that with the given PM field the coil sees a given change in flux for the given change in distance and reacts by producing a given quantity of charge flow, the faster I rotate the disc the shorter the time period for that charge quantity to flow the higher the reading on my meter.

Set the meter to voltage and repeat.

I get the same observations for voltage as I do for current, that is there is a given quantity of voltage per change in flux per rate of change.

What I observe to be the difference is the resistance.

Infinite resistance means only voltage and no flow, Zero resistance means all flow and no voltage.

You can repeat the tests with various resistors if so desired.

My take on it then is that voltage and current then look like opposites of each other and there relationship is determined by the resistance that is observed.

Of course this could be an artifact of how we measure this thing called electricity,, or maybe the measuring devices themselves,, not sure

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2017, 07:05:42 PM »
That is exactly what I was trying to say when I stated that
The charge value was a quantity.

"Voltage" being the referenced potential to create current.
This is defined by the way we measure volts
Generally through a resistor

Resistance ( or impedance) is like the size of a hole in a glass
Charge being the water
A tiny hole will produce a small stream ( low current)
But at a high pressure ( lots of volts)
A large hole will produce a large stream ( lots of current)
But at a lower pressure ( low volts)
The two are synonymous when the gravitational and electric fields
Are both "uniform".

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2017, 07:21:38 PM »
Not really what I am saying.

It is O.K. to not see things the same,, it means you can play with your toys your way and I can play with mine my way.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2017, 07:21:38 PM »

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2017, 01:21:24 AM »
Have you ever considered that when you use voltage to move current through a conductor that there might be a constant rate of change between the voltage and current?

That this rate of change is from the source and the conductor, as well as the conductor is supplying a discrete path for observing and allowing the source to try and dissipate its internal higher energy condition.

If then a PM motor is viewed, the PM rotating towards or away from the coil creates a change in flux, and the rate of rotation creates a rate of change in flux.

If at least some part of the source energy dissipation is in the form of a flux field around the conductor then the conductor would have an interaction with the PM.

#### dieter

• Hero Member
• Posts: 952
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2017, 06:01:29 AM »

Voltage is not Charge separation, but the result of charge seperation. For a good reason the old term for voltage is "Tension" where in german that is still the only term used (Spannung). I would even say, depending on the method of charge separation or the reason for potential diffrence, it may be eighter tension or pressure, and that depending on whether electrons are pushed or pulled out of the ambient equilibrium.
kr

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2017, 06:01:29 AM »

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2017, 03:28:25 PM »
Perhaps it might be better to say that what we measure and call voltage is a change in charge separation.

This would allow for a decrease in separation to give rise to a negative electric field flux, and an increase in separation to give rise to a positive electric field flux.

This still allows for the simple observation without needing to explain the causality.

You can push the charge apart from within or pull it apart from without,, the end is still the same change in separation.

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2017, 03:53:51 PM »
A simple analogy to point out the obvious

If I pick up a rock and drop it the amount of work done lifting the rock is the same amount of work I can collect when I drop it.

I can extract that work from the falling rock in several ways,, I can have it operate a lever, pull a string or let it accelerate and collect it from the impact when it hits the ground,, all in all the work I extract is the same as the work I expended lifting the rock.

What if the rock instantly traveled from where I dropped it to the ground?  If that rock travels that distance in 1 second or if it travels the same distance in 0.0001 seconds,, which one would have more energy when it hits the ground?

The induced voltage in a coil is related to the rate of change of the magnetic flux.

The rate of change in magnetic flux is related to the rate of change in the flow of current.

If I apply a voltage across a coil for t=5,, the current has increased from zero to its constant state of flow and the flux has increased from zero to its constant state in t=5.

What is the rate of change in flux then if I suddenly stop the current flow through the coil?

What would be the reaction be of a second coil in close proximity to the first one?

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2017, 05:47:35 PM »
A simple analogy to point out the obvious

If I pick up a rock and drop it the amount of work done lifting the rock is the same amount of work I can collect when I drop it.

I can extract that work from the falling rock in several ways,, I can have it operate a lever, pull a string or let it accelerate and collect it from the impact when it hits the ground,, all in all the work I extract is the same as the work I expended lifting the rock.

What if the rock instantly traveled from where I dropped it to the ground?  If that rock travels that distance in 1 second or if it travels the same distance in 0.0001 seconds,, which one would have more energy when it hits the ground?

The induced voltage in a coil is related to the rate of change of the magnetic flux.

The rate of change in magnetic flux is related to the rate of change in the flow of current.

If I apply a voltage across a coil for t=5,, the current has increased from zero to its constant state of flow and the flux has increased from zero to its constant state in t=5.

What is the rate of change in flux then if I suddenly stop the current flow through the coil?

What would be the reaction be of a second coil in close proximity to the first one?

1) if you achieved instantaneous travel, your rock would have a velocity of 0.
And would simply arrive at its' destination.
2) if the rock dropped over a 1 second interval, it would be traveling at 9.8 m/s
if the rock dropped over a 0.0001 second interval, it would be traveling at
98,000 m/s and thus would possess much more kinetic energy.
Of course you would have placed this amount of energy into your rock
when you launched it downwards to achieve this velocity.

3) the rate of change in flux is derived from the permeability of free space [e(u)] and the
strength of the magnetic field (relative to the ambient).

4) the rate of change in flux is derived from the permeability of free space and the
inductance of the coil, and the strength of the magnetic field (relative to the ambient).

These mathematical descriptions coincide with observation.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2017, 05:47:35 PM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2017, 06:08:29 PM »
E^2 = (mgh)^2 = pc^2 + (m0c^2)^2
m^2g^2h^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4

Which is  why gravity remains only a theory

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2017, 06:45:59 PM »
Everything is only a theory really.

Free energy is all around us but I think that in trying to be more "certain" of things has hidden it.

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2017, 08:08:58 PM »

2) if the rock dropped over a 1 second interval, it would be traveling at 9.8 m/s
if the rock dropped over a 0.0001 second interval, it would be traveling at
98,000 m/s and thus would possess much more kinetic energy.
Of course you would have placed this amount of energy into your rock
when you launched it downwards to achieve this velocity.

Case in point,, where did I say that I launched the rock?   I did not but YOU included that for certainty,, Why?

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2017, 04:56:42 PM »
If voltage leads current then the current is delayed
If current leads voltage then the voltage is delayed
If either of these is happening in a repeating cycle then we tend to call it a phase shift.

Why do we view the induction process as a Newtonian type of interaction?

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2017, 07:14:30 PM »
If someone were to hook up a scope to a generator coil and spin the generator really slow,, how much energy is observed per cycle?

If the generator was spun really fast,, how much energy is observed per cycle?

Is the energy per cycle related to the time rate of change of the flux density?

Does a fast change in flux density have more energy than a slow change in flux density?

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2017, 07:14:30 PM »