Cookies-law

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.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 482252
  • *Total Topics: 14218
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 187
  • *Total: 195

Facebook

Author Topic: Simplifying what we have observed  (Read 6171 times)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2017, 12:26:40 AM »
Case in point,, where did I say that I launched the rock?   I did not but YOU included that for certainty,, Why?


The assumption was based on the known acceleration of gravity
And the velocity at which you stated the rock to travel.
It, must therefore have been launched.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2017, 12:26:40 AM »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2017, 12:31:36 AM »
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?


These are very good questions.
The answers to which may help define the time variant electric field properties
And the time indifferent magnetic field properties.
Something which our current scientific models fail to explain.
(My explanation does not fit the current models)




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2017, 09:04:51 AM »

The assumption was based on the known acceleration of gravity
And the velocity at which you stated the rock to travel.
It, must therefore have been launched.

That is more like it :)

The rock must of had some outside force besides gravity UNLESS the velocity was already there,, this is not so easy to grasp,, how could it have a velocity if it was not moving.

Regardless of "that" possible precondition the rock that travels the same distance in less time has more energy,, and that was my point.


These are very good questions.
The answers to which may help define the time variant electric field properties
And the time indifferent magnetic field properties.
Something which our current scientific models fail to explain.
(My explanation does not fit the current models)

The only answers I could find so far,, not that I am looking real hard, is that the faster the rate of change in flux the more energy can be harvested.

Not getting into a bunch of stuff but to keep it real simple,, at least with magnetic induction, Time rate of change which is supposed to be only power is actually an energy potential.

How do you amplify energy in this case?  Simple,, allow the rate of change to happen faster.

One way might be if you could "hold" the flux field value constant for a short time while the magnet is moving relative to the coil and then release said flux, so delay the start of the collapse or start of the build and allow the magnet to move further.

IMO there is a difference in behavior between a coil with core and one without, it is like the core removes the flux from the wire and transforms that "electric" current into a "magnetic" current,, so an air core might be a very good choice.  I suppose a simple test would be to take a coil and supply it with a closed loop core that you could "open",, pulse charge the coil and then using a voltmeter across the coil ends you open the core,, breaking the "magnetic" current should then provide a voltage reading from the coil when the "magnetic" current is released from the core.


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #48 on: February 24, 2017, 03:51:22 PM »
I am not trying to suggest that an air core is the only way to go nor that you need a moving PM,, I do think that if a core is used that the modality of usage will be a little different.

More possible things could look like a motor section that has a longer drive time with a slower flux change whereas the generator section would have the same change in flux but over a shorter time period,, lower voltage in and higher voltage out.


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2017, 01:58:35 PM »
The way I worked through this years ago went like this.

If I pick up a rock on then drop it or if the rock is moving at 1000MPH the rate of change from gravity is the same for all 3 cases, the influence is in the same relative direction even,, on the Earth that rate of change is 9.8m/s/s.

This seems to be a controlled rate of change that is itself controlled by gravity.

What is controlling the rate of change in the flux density?  There may be a maximum rate of change, lets say instantly and there may be a zero rate of change and none of this seems to be controlled by the magnetic field.

I look at the magnetic field and it is almost static,, it does not change.

If I could control that that controls the rate of change then what?  (not saying I can mind you)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2017, 01:58:35 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #50 on: February 25, 2017, 03:39:32 PM »
Hi Webby can the rate of change be controlled with different lengths of cores?
Tesla said that he used different size cores to delay his coils firing  in his motors.
I think it is more so not delaying ,but causing them to manifest at the right times.
If I fire one coil next to the other ,it causes drag , but fire one at zero degrees ,and the next at 90 degrees
the drag is drastically reduced.
But I have four sepperate sets of coils in one embodiment.
artv

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #51 on: February 25, 2017, 04:11:27 PM »
My observation has been that anything that interacts with the magnetic field can have a cause and effect.

The length of core and or the core material can cause a delay in the propagation of the magnetic field through the core.

Tesla said basically that for his single phase motor he used the delay of communication of the manifested magnetic part from the coils,, they both fired off at the same time but the delay of the longer core had its "strong"  moment show up to the rotor a little later.

You can also use different means of interaction together.  You can change the permeability of the space between say a PM and coil,, then you can also change the distance of separation,, you can use one way at one time and then the other at another time,,

The whole thing is rather dynamic,, you can change the way the coil reacts which will change the interaction say with a changing permeability of the space between a PM and the coil.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #51 on: February 25, 2017, 04:11:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2017, 04:20:01 PM »
Not to be a stickler, I DO understand your rock analogy.
However, the reality of that situation is that once your
1000 mph rock enters the earth's atmosphere, it will
drastically be slowed down by wind resistance, to some
terminal velocity. This is the point where gravity is cancelled
by wind resistance, also the max that your slow rock can
accelerate UP to.


Ultimately, both rocks will travel at the same speed.
Which is something like a couple hundred mph.


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2017, 05:44:56 PM »
no disrespect,,

I think you are missing my point.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2017, 08:25:08 PM »
If the rock were of enough mass, the gravitational acceleration
would exactly cancel the gravitational deceleration after it smashed
A hole right through the earth and continued through space otherwise
unimpeded.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2017, 08:25:08 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2017, 02:56:53 PM »
Why would you respond in such a way?

You keep adding in things that I did not include just to make what kind of statement?

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2017, 07:42:06 PM »
Those are the only things to be "observed" in your
Theoretical situation of two rocks.


Were we to choose a less extreme velocity to compare
gravitational effects, you would "observe" e=mgh
Thus negating your entire proposition.
We're the rock not to have been launched, then the velocity
would determine that the rock was dropped from a higher
point than the slow moving rock.


Because of the extreme velocity of your theoretical rock
There is no h at which this would hold true.
I.e.- it was launched or already moving that fast from
some other source in space. If we know the mass,
We can determine what would be observed.


We could suppose us on a planet with no atmosphere
And thus no resistance to gravitational acceleration
But that's more of a though experiment
Not something we observe on Earth.
Even in space e still = mgh,
It's just that the g changes value with distance
Like magnetism in a way


If you know the value of g
The math is all the same.



Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2017, 07:57:33 PM »
Perform the same "free fall" experiment with 2 magnets.
That do not have the restriction of "time" in their equation.
What is the final velocity of the moving magnet when it "lands"?


How does the shape of the magnet affect this?
Does it matter it faces north or south towards the "ground"?


How would things behave if gravity was "up"?
For instance if our moon at the size of Jupiter


We know each of these situations would be different than what we
assume things to do
But we cannot observe the answers to any of these questions
At least not through conventional means.


Like your rock.
We can observe a 9000mph rock entering our atmosphere
(Then it is no longer going that fast)
Or we could, with enough force, launch a rock at 9000mph.


What we would really observe is the fact that the rock passes
32 feet of altitude faster than one second of time.
Think about how that applies to the acceleration.
While a rock that is moving at 32 feet per second would
Receive the full +32 feet/sec faster for that 3 feet of drop
the 9000mph rock would only accelerate 1/1000th of that
Amount over the 1 meter drop.


It would have to fall for one second of time to accelerate
the full 32  feet per second per second.
That's roughly 32,000 feet.








Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2017, 10:36:37 PM »
Why don't you tell me what the constant force from gravity is then,, since I take it that here on this planet you do not think that it is 9.8m/s/s.

It would also seem that you do not think that 9.8m/s/s is a rate of change.

It also seems that you do not think that this rate of change will be applied whether or not other forces are in play or if some magic velocity is attained.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2017, 12:37:47 AM »
You can also use different means of interaction together.  You can change the permeability of the space between say a PM and coil,, then you can also change the distance of separation,, you can use one way at one time and then the other at another time,,

This is so true.
artv

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2017, 12:37:47 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: