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

## Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: webby1 on January 07, 2017, 06:37:31 PM

Title: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 07, 2017, 06:37:31 PM
I am trying to keep this to what we observe and not trying to explain why or what a charge carrier is,, staying with only we see this when that.

Lets consider what actions we are aware of without over-thinking them.

When current "flows" it creates a flux.

When flux "flows", or changes, it creates a current "flow".

When charge carriers are moved from one place to another without being able to fill in the starting spot there is a voltage difference.

A charge separation creates an electric field potential difference.

With no resistance to the "flow" of current and no separation there is no voltage.

Opposite electric fields attract.

Opposite magnetic fields attract.

Current "flow" to flux is independent to voltage, except with respect to resistance to that flow creating a voltage.

Voltage is independent from current "flow" except with respect to charge separation while current is "flowing".

Current is to flux and voltage is to separation. ( any resistance to "flow" will separate the charge )

Without over-thinking this then it looks like you have 2 independent interactions with a common medium that can allow for 2 different reactions to changes within this medium.

A slow build up of flux slightly causes charge separation, a rapid change in flux builds a larger charge separation.

Please feel free to change this,, I am trying to simplify things so that any person reading it can understand it.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 07, 2017, 08:28:51 PM
How fast can you discharge a cap? and does that rate of change change the energy value?  does it change the quantity of charge carriers moved?

The same for charging a cap.

How much force is present between the plates of a charge cap?  does this force value change with the rate of charge\discharge?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 08, 2017, 02:58:51 PM
What we observe, is that the charge value
is a quantity. An amount.

The time it takes to discharge this amount
- defines the current.
I do not mean defines like a wordly description.
But like the two are observed to be directly proportional.
Slow the rate of discharge, decrease current.
Increase the rate of discharge and you see more current
but it is discharged over a shorter time.

The quantity remains constant.

We also see that (at amplitudes that exceed ohms law)
resistance to flow decreases as
the value of the charge increases.

For example
Resistance at 12v is much greater than resistance at 13Kv
We observe an impedance breakdown process on
an atomic/molecular and macrocrystaline level.

[are graphs ok? I know they are theoretical but the data ]
[they are made from comes from observation]

If you were to graph resistance it is a reverse graph.
(right to left)
When flow increases, resistance to flow is observed to increase.
This is graphed left to right, and if you overlay these graphs
There is a point where the two meet.
If you follow this point as both current and voltage are increased
There is a 'time derived' rate of increase at which
resistance/impedance remains constant.
Each medium is different in regards to the rate of change.
Or (unimpeded) rate of change.
Going outside of this rate by increasing voltage or current too faster than the other
Not only changes resistance but the very value of the other quantity.

What we observe is too much current depletes the potential
Or too much potential increases the current.

And by this the two are bound to their medium.

Further we observe that one does not exist without the other.
If there is a charge potential, there is a flow.
When a charge is said to be contained, what we actually observe
is that the charge is simultaneously replenished and depleted.
Thus, there is a flow. (However impeded it may be).

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 08, 2017, 03:06:05 PM
With an isolated flux differential (such as a permanent magnet)
We can observe the flow of an isolated potential.
With an isolated electric charge we observe only half of this.
The other half exists in the surrounding medium.
The insulator acts as both the impeder and the replenisher.

By observing all 3 interactions, we can follow the electric field currents
of the isolated charge and find them to be just like the magnet.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 08, 2017, 05:05:36 PM
Graphs are fine.

My intent is to simplify back to that that is actually observed,, as in I can not observe a field but I can observe its reaction, so instead of trying to conclude what or how just stay with what is observed.

There is something,, call it a field if needed, that happens around a conductor when current flows, not trying to conclude what current is or what the field is, only that it is there and it has a reaction to and with the environment that we can observe.

I have observed an almost instantaneous discharge of a capacitor, I have observed a time rate of charge and discharge of a capacitor that is dependent of the resistance or impediment to current flow.

I have observed a longer time with current flow to charge a capacitor to a higher voltage.

These observations can go on for a while,, but the intent and or desire is to sum them all up in a very simple way and with as few assumed definitions as possible.

Voltage is  a measure of some potential difference.
Current is a measure of some quantity of something moving.

If then we ASSUME that Voltage is charge separation and Current is charge motion how would it be stated as to what we can observe in a simple fashion,, understanding that we might need to change the base assumption.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 09, 2017, 05:52:49 PM
Funny computational observation.

For the same quantity of charge carriers that are moved and stored you can have different amounts of stored energy.

1V @ 1F compared to 10V@0.1F,, both are 1 coulomb of charge carriers moved and stored,, 0.5J and 5.0J,, interesting :)
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 12, 2017, 07:48:17 PM
Going off topic a little bit  :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_material

If I take the simple observations of a charged capacitor and use the accepted formulas, they predict that there will be a loss when charging a capacitor from another capacitor or any fixed voltage source.

If I charge the capacitor with a source that starts at 0V and moves up as the capacitor charges then I will have spent the same energy to charge the capacitor as what is stored, this is predicted by the formulas.

This infers to me then that the dielectric behaves as a Maxwell fluid.

With that in mind,  if I were to charge a capacitor up to some voltage and then short the capacitor until it just hits ZERO volts and then open the capacitor again I would have the condition where the "spring" is un-sprung but the fluid has not re-balanced and so I would expect to see a voltage rise on the cap after the ZERO volt open condition while the "fluid" part is re-balancing.

Has anyone noticed if after you short a cap there is a voltage rise on that cap?

How many times do you need to short that cap to make sure it is at ZERO volts??? or how long do you need to hold it shorted???
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on January 12, 2017, 08:24:34 PM
What I find interesting is how one cap bank identical to the other, can charge the bank that is of higher value.
That is, the left bank is rated for 64 volts at 1500uf, the right bank is identical.
The left bank has 24volts stored, the right only has 10.
As the right drops, the left increases. It's averaging about volt for volt.
When the right bank hits zero, the left has risen to almost 34.
It only works till the right bank hits zero then, the left bank starts to drop.
Just what I,m seeing for now.
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 12, 2017, 08:37:55 PM
Indeed,, I have noticed similar things.

Funny that if that is NOT what you want to happen it is an annoyance,, like chasing the charge around a cap bank to bring the whole bank to zero.

Makes me wonder how many things there are to observe that are missed just because we are not looking.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: partzman on January 12, 2017, 09:06:41 PM
What I find interesting is how one cap bank identical to the other, can charge the bank that is of higher value.
That is, the left bank is rated for 64 volts at 1500uf, the right bank is identical.
The left bank has 24volts stored, the right only has 10.
As the right drops, the left increases. It's averaging about volt for volt.
When the right bank hits zero, the left has risen to almost 34.
It only works till the right bank hits zero then, the left bank starts to drop.
Just what I,m seeing for now.
artv

This is interesting!  The left bank with 24v in 1500ufd equates to .432J and the right bank with 10v in 1500ufd equates to .075J for a total = .507J.  At the end of the transfer, the left bank is ~34v in 1500ufd for an energy of ~.86J for a COP = 1.71.  Is this true?  If so, would you mind showing your test setup?

pm
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 13, 2017, 04:01:02 AM
Aside from the normal specifications of your capacitor
I.e. - charge rate / discharge rate
You must also consider the type of capacitor
Two plates with and insulator behaves entirely different from
Two plates with a dielectric.
The latter has its own secondary capacitance, within the dielectric.
And its' own discharge rate. These things are not handled in the standard equations,
But only accounted for in the more advanced variations of those equations.

Also the number of and orientation of plates makes a difference.
In capacitors in which secondary plates are charged by induction,
These internal ( not electrically connected) plates can retain a charge,
Resulting in a reverse induction (recharging) of the primary plates.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 13, 2017, 06:45:42 AM
Indeed, the matrix can be more convoluted than a simple rolled parallel plate capacitor.

We might choose to use elastance like  O. Heaviside.

Or it can stay with the simple model of the understood capacitor.

Are you saying then that you have not observed this behavior from regular rolled caps?

Are you suggesting that the basic formulas do not cover the regular cap?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on January 13, 2017, 10:23:02 AM
@ Partzman,
I apologize for those numbers. They were speculation from watching the transfer for only a few minutes.
I just did a complete test, left was 22.8, right was12.89. It took over an hour for the transfer to complete.
The left stopped at 31.8, right dropped to 1.48. Now the right is still dropping, when it hits zero then the left will start dropping.
I would like to know how you calculated the joules, the book I have doesn't show it.
Sorry artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 13, 2017, 12:29:03 PM
Indeed, the matrix can be more convoluted than a simple rolled parallel plate capacitor.

We might choose to use elastance like  O. Heaviside.

Or it can stay with the simple model of the understood capacitor.

Are you saying then that you have not observed this behavior from regular rolled caps?

Are you suggesting that the basic formulas do not cover the regular cap?

Well, basic formulas are just that... basic.
Of course this depends on how accurate you want your math to be.
In standard electronics it generally does not matter to be accurate
down to the atomic level. A general or average charge value is acceptable.

One can simply take the area divided by the distance for a parallel plates

Or 2(pi) x area / radial distance for rolled plates.
But for more accuracy you would choose to include
the permeability of the dielectric (and probably the free
space constant), and if you want your equations to be more accurate
You might want to include the materials constants for the plate metals
And the operating temperature of the capacitor along the voltage and frequency curves.

The simple equations taught at basic electronics level, work fine for most applications.
But if you want to know what's really going on inside a capacitor, you must take
into account all sorts of variables, in complex equations that can be half a page of
numbers, symbols, and constants.

Each capacitor will have a maximum rate of charge, meaning regardless of source
the cap will only charge at a certain rate (max). The same can be said on the
discharge. The cap will only discharge at a certain rate (max).
There are inductive factors when one plate is charged and the other is allowed to
charge via induction. This results in inductive coefficients and associated loss or gain.

There are ionic factors with some capacitor types that are ignored in basic equations.
To a technician this simply means the capacitor has specific polarity or voltage bias.
But to understand why, involves complex mathematics that explain how the charges
Actually exist on the plates.

The more accurate we try to be, the more we find that we cannot know exactly.
Even down to the atomic and molecular properties of the metals and the dielectric.
We can take it even further and include quantum factors that tell us precisely how much
we do not know.

This is further complicated by the fact that our point of reference is unknown.

So, how much charge is on that capacitor again?
Our observations are relative to our perspective.

From a point outside our ambient field, the capacitor may appear to have a great charge,
Or from another perspective, be negatively charged.
We say it is 0, because we chose that to be our 0 point.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 13, 2017, 12:44:09 PM
Potential is relative
Where we place our ground, which tabletop we set our devices on
These things can alter the quantity of charge perceived.

Take your volt meter around and measure things.
Do the same with an electrostatic meter
An infrared camera
A magnetometer

Potential is everywhere, just depends on your point of reference.
If we negate our unknown value, we are taking two plates that are
All we really know is what we took from or added to the plates.
Even the constants themselves are derived in controlled environments.
Standard temperatures and pressures, etc.
change environments and these things may need considerations.

Does a capacitor behave the same if we place it in a strong field?
Does a capacitor behave the same if we remove it from our ambient field?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 13, 2017, 02:58:50 PM
I would like to know how you calculated the joules, the book I have doesn't show it.
Sorry artv

J = 0.5*(C*V^2)

C=1500uf =1500*0.000001
V^2=24*24
J = 0.5*(((1500*0.000001)*(24*24)) =  0.432
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 13, 2017, 03:12:14 PM
Does a capacitor behave the same if we place it in a strong field?
Does a capacitor behave the same if we remove it from our ambient field?

I would assume no to the first, within a range of "strong", why do the space craft need heavy shielding if not.

The second one,, remove to where.

The more complexity you add does not change the basic observed interactions.

Simplifying the observations allows for a "new" method or reference frame to manifest, adding in the complexities of prior knowledge will only build the same reference frame we use.

Knowledge,, the explanation that makes sense with the knowledge we already have.

If I simplify the observations and not employ any prior knowledge I am then allowed to view things fresh,, the very thing you are using to respond was built from knowledge gained from those that had none.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: partzman on January 13, 2017, 03:29:15 PM
@ Partzman,
I apologize for those numbers. They were speculation from watching the transfer for only a few minutes.
I just did a complete test, left was 22.8, right was12.89. It took over an hour for the transfer to complete.
The left stopped at 31.8, right dropped to 1.48. Now the right is still dropping, when it hits zero then the left will start dropping.
I would like to know how you calculated the joules, the book I have doesn't show it.
Sorry artv

Hey that's OK!  Your new numbers still show an apparent increase in energy however.  Left start energy is 22.8^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = .389J, right is 12.89^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = .125J for a total starting energy = .514J.  The left ending energy is 31.8^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = .758J, the right is 1.48^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = 1.64mJ for a total ending energy = .76J.  If there is no outside source of energy applied to the circuit, this is an apparent gain of 1.48.

Still curious about the circuit you're using to achieve these results.

pm
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 15, 2017, 07:11:39 PM
Keeping the observations simple and to what is actually observed,,

If I start with my assumption that voltage is charge separation I would need to set up an experiment to test it.

2 identical parallel plates held at say 10mm apart,, short them and all that to try and make sure they have no reading between them, pull them apart to say 20mm and see if there is a reading between them, if not make some kind of change and repeat, note what change was made.

Then do the same experiment but this time moving them together, so going from 10mm down to 1mm.

Repeat both test setups again using a known starting state of charge, make notes.

Take the starting assumption and the test results with notes and see if the starting assumption is good "as is" or if it needs to be changed, does it need some kind of qualifier, or is it just not valid?

While doing all this also look for outside changes or interactions,, is there a magnetic presence?  does something like small pieces of paper close to the testbed move or anything?  Make notes of these as well since they may also appear with other tests for other things.

The chances of you being able to "ignore" your knowledge are really small, so instead of using your knowledge to determine what test you should run to confirm your knowledge use it to ask "what else", "what if" and so on.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 05:39:16 AM
The first assumption was about what it was you were measuring.

Let us short the plates and have no reading between them.
Thus, no potential.

But is there voltage?

When we compare the voltage of the two plates to each other,
We do not perceive a voltage.
But what happens when we compare the plates to something else?
Naturally, if the other thing has a higher or lower voltage than our
two plates, we would perceive a positive or negative voltage on the plates.

Ok so we short both plates out with the 3rd thing, now we have 0 volts, right?
No, we just have 0 potential between those things. Add a 4th, 5th thing and you see
This problem perpetuates itself,
We do not know the initial voltage. Therefore we cannot make any assumptions based on this
lack of knowledge.
We can assume that our potential is our voltage.
But that is incorrect.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 05:45:21 AM
Two humans can have a potential between them at any time of
several hundred thousand volts.

If you and I performed this exact same experiment in two different
laboratories, our measurements and readings might match, but
We would be operating our capacitors at different voltages.
Especially if we touch them during experiments or set-up.

The search for some sort of "0 electrical kelvin" scale has eluded us.
Potentials are everywhere, in extremities. Even across a distance as small as the Earth,
there is enough potential to rip apart matter.

Between two points it is convenient for us to label one as "0".
Or choose a "0 point" in the center and label + and - so many volts.
But that only applies to those 2 points, from our perspective.

When this experiment was performed in a real life situation,
We found that when brought together from a long distance,
The two sets of capacitors in fact had a potential between each other.
Even when both read "0volts" across their shorted plates.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 06:17:03 AM
"0 volts" is an arbitrary point of reference.

Even if we choose a common earth ground as our "0"
What we find is potentials between parts of the ground.
None of it is "0", if it were really "0", we wouldn't be here.

There are places of space that have billions of volts of potential
Both + and - with respect to us on Earth.
We have no reference except that which we choose to be "0".

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 06:31:43 AM
I give you 3 capacitors to measure.
and you label them as you perceive them.
1: "0volts"
2:"10 volts"
3: "20 volts"

Then I hand you a 4th capacitor that is 10 volts lower than your first one.
Well now you have to relabel them with the 4th one now being your "0".

(How? Maybe the testing equipment in your lab with the tile floor makes
the whole lab sit about 10v higher than the door hinge just outside that
I tap the cap on when I walk in)

I know the goal here is to simplify what we observe.
But I think first we must identify what it is we are observing.

A set of capacitors can have the same potential between their plates,
Yet have another potential between each other.
It all depends on the "0" reference chosen when they were charged.

Modern electronics avoids this issue by giving everything a common ground.
Hiding it under the guise of safety or to protect the equipment.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 16, 2017, 04:18:49 PM
Everything is relative, something to learn and something to remember, and that also includes the observation that everything is relative.

You are apparently looking to find the "how" as fast as possible,, try only making observations and look for trends and tendencies.

There may always be things that are just labeled as unknown.

Now on to the labeling,, the scale that is used COULD be compared to a known condition,, or voltage,, maybe there could be a single place where all things measured are compared to,, a place that would have lets say a 1kg weight,, a 10V source,, and so on,, this way the whole world when using a measure would be talking about the exact same thing,,,

When you get to understand that potential of the medium and a difference in potential that we use are NOT the same thing,, things may look different for you.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 05:58:32 PM
Under most other measurements we can and do establish
a standard for measurement. 1atm, sea lvl, standard temp
With electricity, we do not have such a thing.
We only have standard potentials with respect to the source.
A quantitative "volt" is standardized to our other measurements
in terms of potential, referenced from the perspective of observation.
To do this, we give the potential a physical dimension
We can further integrate our potential to the standards by
including time.

Let's take another experiment
We have a single plate which we will "charge" to a potential.
We will each reference our own "0" plate.

First I charge the plate so that it had a100v potential with
respect to my plate.
Your plate is biased 50v above mine, such that when you measure
the charged plate, you have a 50v potential.
This 50v can then be discharged and made to do a quantity of work.
A specific measurable amount of work. From this charged plate.
You can charge and discharge this plate to 50v and repeat the work.
To you, this plate will hold a specific amount of "energy" which you
relate to this work.

If I discharge the same plate, with respect to my "0" reference
I have 100v of potential from which to perform work.
The work done is different, therefore we have two different energy values.
From the same charged plate.

What else do we observe from this experiment?
When you discharge your plate did your bring the charged plate to "0"v?
or did you raise the "0"plate to the charged value?
What we find is that both occur.
Your potential is depleted and therefore immeasurable.
But with respect to my reference, both your plate and the discharged plate

Why is that?

For some t is hard to fathom my reference being different from yours
in the same circuit.
So let's look at this in a different way.
Take 3 plates two are shorted to ground at your "0" reference.
The 3rd is charged to 50v.
Separate the plates and discharge the charged plate to one of the "0"
plates, and you measure 25v potential from those 2 plates to the other
"0" plate.

The charge doesn't "cancel", it balances like water seeking a level.
Where gravity acts on the water, the inverse of impedance acts on
our potential. Lord Kelvin spoke in great detail about the similarities
between electricity and water. He later unified the two, by using water
as an inductor in a gravity powered generator.

In fact, we could also relate electrical potential to gravitational potential
in a more direct analogy. Like going to the lowest point on earth.
Everything is uphill. You have reached the lowest point of possible
gravitational potential.

The electrical equivalent to this would be a point of lowest potential that is
lower than any other charges accessible to us.
We call this a positive dielectric (electrically negative).
These are formed by creating an electret who's negative pole is inside
the material. This gives the equivalent of an electrical monopole.
Or a quasi-permanent negative electrical charge.
With respect to a plate connected to this material, all things have a + charge.
At least all things accessible to us.
We could call this our 'effective 0'. Since we cannot go below that.
But it doesn't matter. Because potential is exactly that.
Like E=mgh
A volt is not a Energy, until we move it over time.
Like a boulder on a cliff does nothing until we let it fall.
How much energy is in that boulder?
That depends on how low the bottom of the cliff is.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 16, 2017, 06:27:12 PM

Let's take another experiment
We have a single plate which we will "charge" to a potential.
We will each reference our own "0" plate.

First I charge the plate so that it had a100v potential with
respect to my plate.
Your plate is biased 50v above mine, such that when you measure
the charged plate, you have a 50v potential.

Without you knowing that there is a 50V bias? or me knowing that,, how is that bias determined?

Again you are seeming to not understand that we are measuring a difference in potential,, not the potential in full.

To bias one plate relative to the other means there is a potential difference between those 2 plates and  that is set to the common plate so that all 3 plates share the same information.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 06:34:14 PM
Without you knowing that there is a 50V bias? or me knowing that,, how is that bias determined?

Again you are seeming to not understand that we are measuring a difference in potential,, not the potential in full.

To bias one plate relative to the other means there is a potential difference between those 2 plates and  that is set to the common plate so that all 3 plates share the same information.

What I mean is your plate and my plate are not referenced to the same ground. We are simply observing
the charge on the 3rd plate.

This is one of the reasons identical handheld multimeters can have different readings.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 06:50:54 PM
Some point of reference must be chosen, otherwise we cannot relate
our experience of the observation. So we choose a "0".
Now observing a charge in a single conductive plate, or between a pair
of identical plates- we can give this charge a quantity. Related to the magnitude
of the potential and the surface area of the plates.
What we observe is that this relationship remains constant and this potential
on these particular plates represents a quantity of energy.

If performed the same every time, this quantity of energy will be the same.
By altering the dielectric or using semiconductive plates this quantity of energy
per surface area can be increased.
But again if performed the same every time this quantity of energy remains the same
With respect to the potential.

The point of my previously proposed experiments was to initiate thinking along the
lines of multiple points of reference and how the 'work done' or energy observed varies.

Of course if we continued to repeate those proposed experiments and there was not a
source of external energy to replenish the bias, then your "0" would balance out with
my "0", and we would all be on level ground.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on January 16, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Right,

To simplify the observations then you are only making an observation of a change with respect to another change applied.

Repeat with many applied changes of varying levels and build a graph,, so long as the changed constraint is the same, that is if you change only the distance of separation lets say,, or the charge level,, but not while changing more than one constraint.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 16, 2017, 08:09:22 PM
Actually it goes much deeper than that.
Electrically, we throw away the difference
By choosing our "0".
This differentiates charge from voltage
On a conceptual level.

And on a physical and mathematical level as well.
This difference is important by exponential factors.
In short, the difference between a joule (work done by charge)
And joules per coulomb (volts)

We have to understand what we are observing.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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".

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: dieter 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
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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)

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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)
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo 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
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on February 25, 2017, 05:44:56 PM
no disrespect,,

I think you are missing my point.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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
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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

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.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo 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
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2017, 04:43:18 AM
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.

It seems you misinterpret what I said.

It also seems you have trouble converting 9.8m into 32 feet

"Constant"???? Who told you this ??
It is only consistently the same close to the Earths surface.

Double the distance from earth, g = 1/4
It is called the Inverse Square Law
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
"Magic velocity"?? Really

If you want to call it "magic" I suppose
Or we could talk about what really is observed.

For instance high velocity meteorite of sufficient size
that it does not burn up during its passing through
the earths atmosphere. And let's say it doesn't hit
the earth. Let's say it travels passed the earth, maybe
comes pretty low to the ground but is going so fast that
it keeps going back into space.

During the descending half of its' journey gravity adds to the
velocity. During the ascending half, gravity subtracts from its'
velocity. So when it enters, then leaves our planet, the earths
gravity has net 0 effect on the rock.

Such is the nature of a conservative field.

An acceleration is the integral of Time.
Time is in the equation twice - do you see that?

Fast rock
1m/1000(m/s) + 9.8m/s/s;  1000m/s + 0.0098m/s
V=1000.0098m/s

Slow rock
1m/1(m/s) + 9.8 m/s/s ; 1m/s +9.8m/s
V= 10.8m/s

Do you see now how gravity affects things differently
at different velocities over a given distance?

This is because you gave the problem as a distance.

If you had proposed that they fell for 1 second of time
from the perspective of a time constant.

The situation you proposed was across a constant distance.

You have to take into consideration how much time the
acceleration is applied for.

Because it is moving at 1000m/s there is only 1/1000th
of a second that gravity is accelerating the rock over that 1m.

Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 27, 2017, 05:12:57 AM
Gravity is a change in time over time.

Magnetism is a change in time over distance.

This is a very important observation.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on February 27, 2017, 02:23:36 PM
You are still missing it.

I have already told you that it is  O.K. for you to not see things the same way I do.

I try most of the time to see things the way others do,, then I go on my way seeing things my way.

Try looking at gravity as moving "through" time.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on February 27, 2017, 03:16:46 PM
I used the rock and gravity as an analogy.

Gravity so far only seems to care about the masses involved and the distance of separation, not the velocity of the objects under observation.

At any point in time the force of gravity is determined by the masses involved an there distance of separation, not there relative velocity, so as the distance changes the force changes and the rate of change of that change becomes the rate of change in distance of separation.

The rate of change from the gravity interaction is internally controlled, the rate of that change is external and is controlled by the change in distance.

Gravity operates independent of time.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 13, 2017, 06:31:01 AM
I find this interesting.

I have built many arrays,  the one on the left is a very simple stack of magnets where one row is overlapping the other row by 1\2 magnet.  I took two of these and broke them in half and put them together like the one on the right.

If you happen to power a coil in repulsion at the right time it does not repel the array, instead it pulls the other magnet pole into the coil with a fair amount of force,,,

Imagine the array on the right placed on a disc on a bearing so it is free to rotate,, blah blah blah.

If you use a stack of magnets instead of a coil it is also interesting in how it responds,,

One thing I tried, but I am not good enough to do it well,, was to short the coil a little before the leading magnet was underneath the coil,, and then open the coil before the trailing magnet was underneath it,, I would think that if that could be done correctly then the array would rotate without using any other input to the coil.

This is a small angle of interaction,, a small window to play in but I find it very interesting.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on March 13, 2017, 09:24:54 AM
Not really sure I understand, but sounds similar to what I'm doing.
I do know that shorting the coil just as the field the coil see's is about to reverse will cause more production from the coil.
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 13, 2017, 02:11:24 PM
I was just playing with an interaction,, I grab what I have available to use as a demonstration device to play with.

I used the array setup on the left to look at the field interactions passing over the poles,, saw what they did with all PM's and then tried a coil and that all took me right back to a motor I built that would increase current draw as it sped up.

Kind of what I am saying is that if you have a trailing opposite pole then the "coil" working in repulsion to the leading coil is not necessarily in repulsion,, and vise-verse  :)

How often do you see the interactive field strength go down, in one sense, as the magnet gets closer?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on March 13, 2017, 07:27:02 PM
As a permanent magnet(pm) approaches a coil that is loaded, the coil produces a magnetic field of the same pole , which in turn wants to repel the approaching magnet, correct? (aka Lenz)
When pm hits dead center of the coil, the flow in the coil reverses right?
Short the coil, on one of it's leads, depending on polarity, just as the reversal is taking place, you will increase gain in the coil.
And I'm thinking short it again as the pm leaves, for more gain but not sure yet ,time will tell.
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 13, 2017, 09:52:56 PM
As a permanent magnet(pm) approaches a coil that is loaded, the coil produces a magnetic field of the same pole , which in turn wants to repel the approaching magnet, correct? (aka Lenz)
Loaded meaning a coil connected to a load so that current will flow through the coil,, yes
Quote
When pm hits dead center of the coil, the flow in the coil reverses right?
At dead center there is no longer a change in magnetic flux so if the coil had no resistance and the load had no resistance then I think the current that is flowing through the coil would continue to "flow".
Quote
Short the coil, on one of it's leads, depending on polarity, just as the reversal is taking place, you will increase gain in the coil.
And I'm thinking short it again as the pm leaves, for more gain but not sure yet ,time will tell.
artv

I am not sure what you mean by "one of its leads".

I look at the magnetic induction process kind of like spinning up a flywheel,, the change in flux one way spins the flywheel up in one direction, (current flow), when the magnet reaches the center and then tries to go away from the center of the coil it then tries to spin the flywheel the other way which takes input to slow the flywheel down and reverse it,, so you put in work to spin it up and then you have to put in more work to slow it down,, this is while the coil is allowing current to flow.

You can stop the "flywheel" part by opening the connection to the coil when the PM reaches the center, the result is a voltage spike.

What I am playing with is when the coil is large enough so that part of the winding covers the trailing magnet so that when the "Lenz" force appears it also pulls the trailing magnet towards the coil, thus offsetting some of the mechanical work needed for the induced voltage\current from the coil,, now when you open the coil the magnets, both of them, are free to keep on going.  Also by using only a pair of magnets there is not this effect trying to pull another magnet that is leading the inducing magnet back into the coil,, so you would have a N and S magnet next to each other, a space between them and the next set and then another N and S magnet next to each other and another space and so on,, so if instead of "shorting" the coil it was connected to a very low resistance primary winding of a step up transformer,, then close the switch completing the circuit at the correct time and then open the switch again at the correct time and the mechanical input cost might be lower than the electrical output collected from the secondary of the transformer.

It is a very small window, or angle of rotation that I am talking about relative to the rotating part,, say like 10 degrees with the switch closed and maybe 40 degrees or so with it open,, that would depend upon the build,, this little finger toy only has 2 pairs so I am using close to 20 degrees maybe closed and 340 degrees open,, just for an example,,,,   I am still trying to see what coil shape works best for me.

This is a sidetrack from the testbed I am slowly building,, that one uses a different approach :)
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 20, 2017, 06:50:56 PM
decades ago when the cost of gasoline was so low that you did not even consider it there was a phrase,,

"There is no replacement for displacement when looking for cheap horsepower"

When you are concerned about the "cost",, well it usually means that you need to change the method of making the power.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on March 22, 2017, 11:37:16 PM
"I am not sure what you mean by "one of its leads".
Hi webby,

AS the approaching magnet induces the build up in the coil, almost instantly an oppsite field begins to build.
They share the same space but a little out of time, if you give a path of delay , you can feed it back ,to assist .

"What I am playing with is when the coil is large enough so that part of the winding covers the trailing magnet so that when the "Lenz" force appears it also pulls the trailing magnet towards the coil"

I use a pole for each leg of the coil, but not continuous.
Also using coils at 90 degrees seems to reduce the magnetic interference from one coil to the next.
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 23, 2017, 12:51:35 AM
Thanks for the information.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 23, 2017, 06:26:10 AM
If I use V=n*(ba/t) and then take V/r to find the current and then I use current*t that gives me the coulombs,, right?

Now that I have the the coulombs and V,,, I can then choose the correct capacitance.

If that is right,, have you ever noticed that as long as n,b,a and r stay the same that the coulombs stay the same,, in other words a given coil and a given magnet will move the same coulombs per cycle no matter the t.

b=flux in Tesla
a=area in m^2
n=turns
t=time in seconds
r=resistance
V=voltage
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 23, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
You ever notice that a capacitor does not really care abut how much time I use to charge it?

You ever notice that torque does not really care about time?  I mean, if I apply 10N-m of torque for 50 degrees and then extract 50N-m of torque for 10 degrees the time does not matter to the torque.  I could apply that 10N-m of torque over 50 degrees in 0.1 seconds and then extract that 50N-m of  torque over 10 degrees in 0.02 seconds,, the torque does not care, it is still a net zero thing.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 23, 2017, 04:04:39 PM
You ever notice that current is coulombs per second?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 23, 2017, 04:12:10 PM
You ever notice that sometimes if you are given the pieces to a puzzle you don't see the solution,, even if you look at it 6 times?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 23, 2017, 04:15:04 PM
Some days you can do the math and it just does not seem to add up.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: Floor on March 25, 2017, 12:01:23 AM

Quote from webby

"You ever notice that current is coulombs per second?"

END QUOTE

yep
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 25, 2017, 02:46:48 PM
If time does not matter as in it is only for power calculations and power is not energy,, then what is the potential stored between a magnet and a coil?

How much energy is that then?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 25, 2017, 08:20:06 PM
There is an infinite amount :)

Barring the obvious limitations of what the wire can pass and stuff,,,
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on March 30, 2017, 05:52:07 PM

You want to throw a baseball hard enough so that it transits from point A to point B in 1 second,, now you want to throw the baseball hard enough so that it transits from point A to point B in 0.1 seconds.

Your throwing motion is the same for both and it is the same baseball.

You need to throw the ball faster, the mass of the ball is the same and so the energy needed to move the ball from point A to point B is the same.

When you throw it faster you are using less time to impart the energy.

When you throw it faster you have f=ma so the more the "a" the more the "f" for the same mass but less time.

If you do NOT consider time and work=F*D then at an instant of observation you have more energy being imparted the faster you throw the ball,, keeping in mind that the energy needed for any speed you want is actually the same amount but it is condensed into a smaller time slice and so *appears* to be larger.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: Zephir on March 30, 2017, 09:10:48 PM
.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on April 02, 2017, 07:13:27 AM
What could be the benefit of being able to pass current through a coil with only the ohmic resistance of the wire to impede the flow of current?

With current equal to coulombs per second,, is there anything else that may be manifested with some link to coulombs per second?

Could the manifestation of this "thing" be useful in some way?
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on April 02, 2017, 07:21:31 AM
I have asked myself one question so many times that I don't even think about it any more.

Does a successful mathematical model prove the concept the mathematical model was built for?

No it does not.

With a successful mathematical model you still need an empirical model to substantiate the mathematical model,, a testbed.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on April 02, 2017, 10:06:54 PM
A new set of rules have to be written ,every time you add a new component.
One magnet passing a coil is one set of rules, one magnet passing 2 coils is another , 2 magnets passing 2 coils is different again.
Placing the interacting fields in the right place at the right time is  the answer.
You can't eliminate Lenz ,you need to use it's effect to help you.
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on April 03, 2017, 12:17:06 AM
That is one way of looking at it.

My "probable" solutions are not the only solutions,, so the big trick is to figure out many different solutions so that the actual working component and relationship can be understood.

The testbed I am playing with does not produce any "new" energy,, it just uses forms of energy in different ways than what is normal,, and yet the math used is still that which we know and understand and supports what I am playing with.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on April 04, 2017, 01:00:24 AM
I agree 100 percent.
It's too bad that everybody uses the actions of a single interaction, and then think it is the same for multiple interactions.
I,m currently using the magnetic fields produced by said interactions,as anybody is, but trying them at different points along their propagation,
it does make a difference.
Use the collapsing field, to enhance the propagating field.
The influence of a field produces , an opposite field ,the hard part is ,for how long?
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on April 04, 2017, 02:05:01 AM
The only way I can think of without having all the fancy equipment is trial and error.

You could look up the known formulas\values for propagation through different materials to try and narrow down the scope of ranges,, but I think the differences might be small.

Sounds like what you are trying is way more difficult than what I am trying,, I like simple things :)
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: shylo on April 06, 2017, 12:08:21 AM
Yeah no expensive equipment here , just trial and error , I like things simple too.
But the more you add , the more it changes.
Use a collapsing field next to generating field , that are both using the same magnet rotor.
Now place the generating field 90 degrees away from the collapsing field.
It's not OU but it makes a difference in how the rotor behaves.
You can use the lenz to help the motoring but it won't be enough to sustain motoring , then add loads ,more new rules.
artv
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on April 08, 2017, 11:07:44 AM
I guess my view on some things is just not the same as others :)

the capital letters are not yelling,, but for emphasis, and it is not aimed at any single person.

Small rant,,,

Have you ever noticed that physics is circular?

That is, it defines and equates to a closed system.

When you read the words "in a closed system" and you apply the laws of physics,, what do you think that means?

What it means is that when you apply those laws and formulas on EVERYTHING that you THINK is within the system and something does not add up,,, well then,, that means YOU did NOT include ALL things,, now you have to go and find what you missed.

Please note that the laws of physics did not and do not state that YOU appreciated everything within the system under investigation,, they require YOU to ENSURE that you are including EVERYTHING within the system to make THEM balance out,, if they don't balance out? then they require YOU to go and find what was missed.

It would be nice if people could just use the tools available to find new stuff instead of spending so much time and effort miss-understanding the tools.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on April 08, 2017, 10:19:54 PM
Just as an example of why using a circular system is important and or helpful.

Using base 10 as the accepted and understood number relationship.

Accepting that there are + - * /

and that + is the opposite of -
and that  / is the opposite of *

We can understand that

2+4 = 6

and that

2*4 = 8

Now since the system is circular we can solve for an unknown.

2+? = 6
? = 6-2

2*? = 8
?= 8/2

Now if then you have a condition of data that shows that

2*4 = 9

Then something is missing

since 2*4 = 8 not 9

so you could then write it as

(2*4)+?=9

and now you can solve for ?

Finding the answer to the ? within the test results can be harder,, but you at least know that you need to find something.

It could be that ? is not a single operation,, it could be all manner of things and that is where having help could be beneficial.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on May 06, 2017, 07:00:36 PM
What happens when you have 2 conservative events happening within one system but only 1 of the events can be conservative and the other not?

Interesting ;)
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: Erfinder on May 06, 2017, 07:34:32 PM

Try looking at gravity as moving "through" time.

Time like degree is a unit of measure....in this wise, time folds and unfolds as gravity "appears" to move, from, towards, from-towards folding unfolding, imploding-exploding sequences of events.  I am not suggesting that "time" is a thing in and of itself, I am suggesting that as the event unfolds, more of the measuring stick becomes visible.  I am not even suggesting that gravity moves, ergo the use of the word "appears"...

I think we have the wrong idea on many subjects....gravity and time being two such subjects. We have made the aforenamed enemies that we must overcome, foes we must defeat.  Nature has provided us with many examples which demonstrate that our concept of gravity is fundamentally flawed, and the same holds true for time.  Unfortunately, folk live for a good fight.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on May 06, 2017, 09:07:37 PM
A long time ago I learned that not only do I need to double check my assumptions and be willing to change them with the results of experimentation but that I also have to deal with the conclusions that both myself and others have drawn from what was thought to be observed.

Kind of like the old phrase,, if this then that,, most would conclude there is only one "that" and nothing else.

A lot of assumptions begin with the conclusions others have made.
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on May 07, 2017, 07:20:48 AM
So I ordered some parts so I can rebuild my POC and loop it,, should be simple enough :)
Title: Re: Simplifying what we have observed
Post by: webby1 on May 13, 2017, 07:51:33 AM
Well,, I ordered the wrong parts,,

I need to do a little more testing so I can order what I actually need.

In the meanwhile I put this up a little while ago.

https://forum.1webby1.com/index.php?topic=12.msg45;topicseen#new