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.
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

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 503025
  • *Total Topics: 15035
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 26
  • *Total: 32

Author Topic: Persistent-current destroys a theory about 'propagation' of electrical-current  (Read 871 times)

Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
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/
 ...
You explained nothing, we see only childish pictures with giberrish.
What are "charged particles"?!
What are "electrostatic forces"?!
You are denying physics while using physics concepts!
Total non sense, not even internally consistent.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
You explained nothing, we see only childish pictures with giberrish.
What are "charged particles"?!
What are "electrostatic forces"?!
You are denying physics while using physics concepts!
Total non sense, not even internally consistent.

You said nothing, this was only a plain offense.

Childish pictures i show out of frustration, because i know that offense follows. And so that who offends because of these pictures, shows their ignorance. Do you know about punk? This is also a parody. But there are evidently very few things in the world that you even know.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
You said nothing, this was only a plain offense.
"Nothing" is what you kept from my explanations, don't confuse the two.
The explanations using physics were provided in reply #12.
The explanation of the internal logical flaw of your denial was in my reply #13.
If you don't understand them, ask. If science and logic are too complicated, religion or science fiction are alternatives.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
The explanations using physics were provided in reply #12.
The explanation of the internal logical flaw of your denial was in my reply #13.

In the post #12 you wrote your following musing "Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom don't provide work." Thank you for your wisdom, i don't think anyone here buys it. As a matter of fact i don't think anyone buys it in the physics forum either.

I asked that in the freenode ##physics channel. Whether the electrons in the atoms of two magnets that attract to each other, do work. The answer i got was "For electrons that are bound to atoms as part of a substance, there can be a net action and hence work done". And no one there really disagreed with that answer. They were people working as scientists.

I told them my this experiment as well, of showing induction with a blower  https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/  All they said was "Hmmmm", they said nothing negative, that it is ridiculous or anything, they said nothing against. Because different from you they are people who can think.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
Has anyone studied the Aharonov-bohm-Effect ?

You are talking about the wave function of the electron, that is how the electron actually vibrates. It is possible that various quantum phenomena affect that, but i don't see how this is relevant to the interaction between the charged particles, that may be anyhow relevant to overunity. But of course i cannot know every possibility.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
...The answer i got was "For electrons that are bound to atoms as part of a substance, there can be a net action and hence work done". And no one there really disagreed with that answer. They were people working as scientists.
It's a wishfull thinking because there is no supporting facts.

You are talking about the wave function of the electron, that is how the electron actually vibrates. It is possible that various quantum phenomena affect that, but i don't see how this is relevant to the interaction between the charged particles, that may be anyhow relevant to overunity.
I share your opinion. Even if this is not the dominant viewpoint, the Aharonov-Bohm effect is sometimes explained by some physicists in terms of classical physics instead of QM. It is related to vector potential. I think there's a possibility here. Nevertheless, it is not related to the absurdities spread by Bearden to appear intelligent, he extracts anything from physics without mastering the slightest thing.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
It's a wishfull thinking because there is no supporting facts.

Think what you want, i just said what these physicists told. And it was quite an opposite to what you said.

"It is related to vector potential"

Yes vector potential, the Schrõdinger equation describes the vector of the quantum system and its change in time, which i think is what they call vector potential. The component with zero magnetic field of it is thus about the wave function and vibration of the electron, like its phase. It is not something that one can directly measure as a voltage or current, or electric or magnetic field. It might affect what happens though in some subtle and unknown ways.

Bohm was all about non-locality. Like a photon going through two slits simultaneously, likely because it is a bigger structure. Here too, it's like the electrons in the atoms of the core in a way extend to the electrons in the electron beam, because vector potential seems to describe a particle. In spite that the charged particles supposed to interact with each other only by changing photons, which is the electromagnetic quantum.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
The Schrödinger equation is related to the wave function, not to the vector potential. Wave function and vector potential are totally distinct concepts, even if the Aharonov-Bohm effect can be explained by classical physics which is not the actual consensus.
What a mix-up!   ::)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
The Schrödinger equation is related to the wave function, not to the vector potential. Wave function and vector potential are totally distinct concepts

No, Schrödinger equation describes vector potential.


Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
Has anyone studied the Aharonov-bohm-Effect ? Beaden described this in the operating principle of MEG

https://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bearden-fact-sheet-meg-how-it-works.pdf

I don't see that this paper anyhow proves that this so called MEG should have any overunity. It starts from talking about Aharonov-Bohm effect, making it to sound like it were something extremely advanced. But then it goes on talking about something completely different, that doesn't seem to be related at all. And finally it looks like that all that supposed to do all these wonderful things, is some nanocrystalline core. What is it and why it supposed to do that, this paper doesn't explain.

Maybe i miss some other hundred papers about that, but this paper supposed to prove that MEG has overunity, and i don't see that it does. It doesn't even describe how that system works, that is what its key component, the nanocrystalline material, does.

I also don't see what this MEG has to do with Aharonov-Bohm effect. Sorry, there may be things that i don't know, but this paper doesn't explain it to me.

I mean, not only doesn't this paper prove that MEG has overunity, but it also doesn't provide any sensible reason why it might have overunity. Thus it is not anything worth to research, unless someone provides some better explanation perhaps.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
F6FLT, reality is like a net bag your grandmother took to the market, even if you read No Stein books.

The drawing below shows electrons actually touching each other, but this can only be true for short distances i think, the same as the Aharonov-Bohm effect or two slit experiment. At longer distances they should use photons as quanta, why, because on the grid one cannot find another without sending something propagating through the grid. These are the only ways for particles to interact, they can only fumble in a way or another, the particles are blind, they cannot see. And we can also see only because of photons.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213

Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
False.
Schrödinger equation
Vector potential

You are not correct when saying false.

In the Schrödinger equation for charged particles, the electromagnetic field is described by the vector potential and electric potential.

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


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
The classical fields can indeed be extracted from the wave function but there is no identity between the Schrödinger equation and the vector potential as shown by the links I provided in my previous post, see the very different definitions and formalism between the two.
Things are not at all as simplistic as you say they are, see here:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-classical-fields-particles-emerge.html

 

OneLink