Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Persistent-current destroys a theory about 'propagation' of electrical-current  (Read 6593 times)

Offline postingsite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
Persistent-current destroys a theory I had about the 'propagation' ( amplifying while moving ) of electrical-current in a loop .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_current
  It says it occurs in the following -
      -In magnetized objects
      -In superconductors
      -In resistive conductors

  Note - It occurs in magnetized-objects, and resistive conductors .

I had a theory that in a simple loop, if you could achieve a  Persistent-/-perpetual current, that while it moves around the loop,  the electromagnetic-field  would continuously collect more and more  aether-particles, so that the current would continuously increase until the loop is vaporized .
   - So I'm referring to the non-electron part of electric-current,  the electromagnetic-field part of electric-current, that when that moves around a loop it collects more and more aether-particles .

     My original theory
      - I used to think that there was a non-electron part of electric-current, something like or more non-solid and more fluid than plasma, I thought it was called electromotive-force, but now I think it just must be the electromagnetic-field .

I do remember reading that in recent years ( maybe last 2-3, or 5 years ),  there was a large  mobile-generator made, that was based on Persistent-current ( probably just a super-cooled conductor ), and there was a photo of it .

I wonder if my theory could still be correct,  and that the reason these super-cooled loops don't vaporize, is that there is some sort of energy loss in super-cooled conductors,  that energy radiates away from the loop .



Offline ayeaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
I used to think that there was a non-electron part of electric-current, something like or more non-solid and more fluid than plasma, I thought it was called electromotive-force

Electromotive force is a force acting upon electrons, it is not a current.


Offline postingsite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
While on the subject of Persistent-current .

I repeatedly read that if you use thicker wire,  that there will be less resistance .
   - However, I could not find if there is a limit to that effect, or formulas etc
     ( you'd think this would be common stuff for electricians etc )

 - Does this reach a point where it become a superconductor, why not .

 - Also, if you use thicker wire, does the surrounding electromagnetic-field shrink .

   So what if you use a  small 1.5-volt battery to send a single pulse around a 1-meter diameter thick continuous loop of wire, what will happen to that pulse / current, persistent-current ?
   - Also, while the pulse travels around the loop, will the electromagnetic-field emitted by the loop be smaller or greater than that of a loop of 1-cm wire
     

 

Offline F6FLT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
Persistent currents are a consequence of Newton's first law applied to rotations:
"The principle of inertial rotation: in the absence of a net applied torque, the angular velocity remains unchanged."

If no force is applied, there is no reason for the rotating charges to stop.
On the other hand, persistent currents do not provide work. If they do, the currents would no longer be persistent because a reaction force would oppose them. I don't see a track for energy here.



Offline ayeaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
On the other hand, persistent currents do not provide work. If they do, the currents would no longer be persistent because a reaction force would oppose them.

Except one thing, electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. This remains persistent, even when it does provide work.


Offline postingsite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
I don't see a track for energy here.

About 2 maybe 3 years ago I read an article about a currently existing and built,  mobile-generator based on persistent-current, in the photo it was large, and mounted on a large truck .
  I am no longer able to find any information about it .

Maybe they didn't know about claimed self-powered-motor-generators, or maybe it was useful since it would have provided a totally smooth current like a battery,

Offline postingsite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
I forgot to add to my last post  20 minutes ago -

I had a theory that in a simple loop, if you could achieve a  Persistent-/-perpetual current, that while it moves around the loop,  the electromagnetic-field part of the current would continuously collect more and more  aether-particles, so that the current would continuously increase until the loop is vaporized .
   - So I'm referring to the non-electron part of current,  the electromagnetic-field part, that when that moves around the loop it collects more and more aether-particles .

     My original theory
      - I used to think that there was a non-electron part of electric-current, something like or more non-solid and more fluid version of plasma, I incorrectly thought it was called electromotive-force, but now I think it just must be the electromagnetic-field .

Offline F6FLT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
Except one thing, electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. This remains persistent, even when it does provide work.
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.

Offline ayeaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.

Like what about two magnets repulsing each other? How can that happen without electrons in two atoms repulsing each other? How can two magnets attract each other without electrons attracting to the nucleus of another atom? But you don't think about it, as you call it magnetic field. And by naming it so, you omit the explanation. But everything is caused by charged particles, there is no mysterious magnetic field that just happens to be, and has no causes. Magnetic field is an emergent phenomenon caused by movement of charged particles, and forces between them.

You say don't provide work, everything that causes something else to move by repulsion or attraction of the field, does provide work.

Now you may show me some pages of some books, and say instead argue with all these people who wrote all these books. How convenient. But you argue with what i say.


Offline Turbo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
    • Youtube
Like what about two magnets repulsing each other? How can that happen without electrons in two atoms repulsing each other? How can two magnets attract each other without electrons attracting to the nucleus of another atom? But you don't think about it, as you call it magnetic field. And by naming it so, you omit the explanation. But everything is caused by charged particles, there is no mysterious magnetic field that just happens to be, and has no causes. Magnetic field is an emergent phenomenon caused by movement of charged particles, and forces between them.

You say don't provide work, everything that causes something else to move by repulsion or attraction of the field, does provide work.

Now you may show me some pages of some books, and say instead argue with all these people who wrote all these books. How convenient. But you argue with what i say.

There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.
In that respect, there is a mysterious magnetic field that just happens to be, and has no causes.
The problem is that you only think it is there when you can observe it.
That is a mistake because it is always here, there, everywhere.

Let's say that it reacts to charged particles, then you would be close, but still not quite right.
The best part about all of this, is that it is very simple to prove all of this.
There is a set of simple tests that you can run, that will change your understanding forever.

They involve magnets, a coil and... charged particles or better said a moving electrostatic field.

Offline ayeaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.

No.


Offline postingsite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
Still don't know - .

 -  If you use thicker wire, does the surrounding electromagnetic-field shrink .

Also

There is something called space, and the magnetic field is a property of it.

What if electromagnetic radiation is actually ripples in aether-soup, a 3d version of pond ripples,  an effect that may even trick science tests that prove otherwise .

About 2 maybe 3 years ago I read an article about a currently existing and built,  mobile-generator based on persistent-current, in the photo it was large, and mounted on a large truck .
  I am no longer able to find any information about it .

Maybe they didn't know about claimed self-powered-motor-generators, or maybe it was useful since it would have provided a totally smooth current like a battery,


I think or assume it was only used to provide a brief powerful pulse for things that need that,  I doubt it can continuously provide stable power .

Offline F6FLT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
Like what about two magnets repulsing each other?
Two magnets repulsing (or attracting) each other exploit the magnetic potential energy of their relative start positions. In the final positions, the field around the magnets has changed, there is less energy in the field, the energy difference has been used.
You must use a mechanical energy to put them back to their start position and restore the field energy and the associated magnetic potential energy.

It's exactly the same with 2 capacitor plates attracting each other, they tend to reduce their starting potential energy.
It is exactly the same with the potential gravitational energy of a mass falling on earth from a certain altitude.

These are commonplace facts that never involve orbital electrons.
Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work.

Offline F6FLT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
No.
But it is. The magnetic field is a vector defined at a position in space, as Turbo said in other words (in spacetime, exactly).
It's a definition, with a formalism, not an objective reality.
If you don't agree define another concept to qualify your reality, like "magnetic gizmo" and define clearly its properties otherwise it's only gibberish.

Offline ayeaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
But it is. The magnetic field is a vector defined at a position in space, as Turbo said in other words (in spacetime, exactly).
It's a definition, with a formalism, not an objective reality.
If you don't agree define another concept to qualify your reality

I explained here how even induction comes from the movement of charged particles and electrostatic forces between them  https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/

No you are wrong, when an object falls to the ground, then the Earth's gravitational field provides work. That we need the same energy to lift that object to the same height, that's due to symmetry of the gravitational field, it's spherical. Which means it can do work, but cannot do continuous work. But magnetic field is not symmetric, as it has two poles, this asymmetry is again due to electrons orbiting the nucleus of the atom. And every asymmetric field can do continuous work.