PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 22:40:50
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Smudge's Route to Overunity  (Read 10088 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
@ F6FLT,

In my suggested experiment I am charging the conductor electrostatically, the EHT generator is connected so that current flows to do this.

In my professional career I was involved with missile radar where flying through rain was a problem.  Not the radar reflections from rain but the fact that rain drop impacts cause the missile to gain charge via the triboelectric effect. Aircraft have the same problem and the craft can reach such high voltages that corona discharge occurs at any sharp protuberance.  That creates wide band EM noise affecting on-board radios and radars.  The solution is to have deliberate discharge points away from any antenna, known as wick dischargers, that limit the electric potential and stop any discharges near the antenna.  But there is another problem with radomes that cover radar antenna.  Charge can build up on the radome surface and that can reach a high enough value that discharge occurs across the surface.  This is known in the trade as streaking.  Again that introduces EM noise.  I don't have any references to give you on this but it does imply that surface currents are entirely different from conduction currents and can flow across dielectric surfaces.  The electrons remain attached to the surface (the image charge within the dielectric ensures this) so it is a genuine surface flow.

If you are familiar with cold cathode electron emitters for vacuum tubes you may know about Spindt Tip cathodes.  These are conductors that have a surface that is engineered to be covered in sharp pointed tips on a micro scale.  Surface charge accumulates at these sharp points to reach a level where discharge into the vacuum occurs at reasonable low voltages at room temperature.  I don't know whether anyone has studied electron flow across the surface of these cathodes but it is clear to me that it would not follow the usual conduction flow rules.  In air this cathode surface would be a good candidate for creating the surface plasma that is being discussed in the TPU thread.

I agree with you that wide and very flat conductor would conduct the current better than a cylindrical conductor with the same cross section, but I don't know of any studies that confirm this surface flow.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
@F6FLT,

Maybe this paper will lead to more information.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@Smudge
Thank you for your feedback. I will look into this carefully before making any further comments.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2982


Buy me a beer
  I don't know whether anyone has studied electron flow across the surface of these cathodes but it is clear to me that it would not follow the usual conduction flow rules.  In air this cathode surface would be a good candidate for creating the surface plasma that is being discussed in the TPU thread.


Smudge

Yes, the plasma forms through electron extraction and creating ions, ionisation takes place, and at a specific timing, the plasma extinguishes and electrons are collected along with any added electrons in the process. The plasma is a dielectric surface plasma held within the solenoids magnetic field, it is continually moving due to two different delayed pulses in a particular way, resulting in a 7.83Hz beat, the TPU washboard effect.

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Back to magnetic motors.  Here is another paper suggesting a possible motor.  Anyone up to building something?  This uses stator disc magnets all facing inwards but uses  finger-like rotor magnets set as spokes.  These are magnetized across their thin dimension.  A system using just one disc and one spoke could be measured to see whether the torque over a full revolution averages to zero, or whether there is a small net torque in one direction.

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Back to magnetic motors.  Here is another paper suggesting a possible motor.  Anyone up to building something?  This uses stator disc magnets all facing inwards but uses  finger-like rotor magnets set as spokes.  These are magnetized across their thin dimension.  A system using just one disc and one spoke could be measured to see whether the torque over a full revolution averages to zero, or whether there is a small net torque in one direction.

Smudge

I know this is a few months old but since I just came across this. In Axisymmetric problems you need to imagine you rotate everything around 360, it seems like you only selectively rotated the stator magnet and kept the rotor magnet as a standard cartesian problem in your calculations.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
I know this is a few months old but since I just came across this. In Axisymmetric problems you need to imagine you rotate everything around 360, it seems like you only selectively rotated the stator magnet and kept the rotor magnet as a standard cartesian problem in your calculations.
The axisymmetric plot is the same for any angle about the z axis (the vertical axis in the plot).  Hence it gives you 3D data for the field everywhere.  I see no problem in using that data for a current element moving as I show, moving through that 3D field.  Being a current element it is like a point.  I agree that anything larger than such an element has to consider the manner of the 3D field when moving in a plane that is not the one seen in the plot.  But I don't think this alters the possibility of something useful happening.
Smudge 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Smudge
Quote
Back to magnetic motors.  Here is another paper suggesting a possible motor.  Anyone up to building something?  This uses stator disc magnets all facing inwards but uses  finger-like rotor magnets set as spokes.  These are magnetized across their thin dimension.  A system using just one disc and one spoke could be measured to see whether the torque over a full revolution averages to zero, or whether there is a small net torque in one direction.

I had similar thoughts and performed quite a few tests with negative results. My reasoning was a small field in a larger focused field could produce asymmetrical forces as you implied. However I only used rotating devices with some inertia to maintain the motion long enough to sample the accelerations and determine the overall change  in velocity.

Something happens, the action/reaction fields always combine in such a way that the energy in/out equal each other. One field may act over a smaller period of time within a space but the field is stronger. Like wise a field can act over a longer period of time within a space but the field is weaker. So the field density versus area is maintained thus the energy.

Some inventors such as Wesley Gary claimed there were very small neutral zones near the field center between the poles which could be manipulated. I found these regions and there's a very good reason most didn't or failed to produce the desired results. As always the devil is in the details and nobody seemed to be following the patent.

A normal bar magnet does have a fairly uniform near/far field as we have all seen in diagrams but not the compound magnets shown in the patent. Compound magnets have a uniform far field but the near field also curls back into each individual magnet. With magnetic viewing film these zones between the magnets appear as white lines where the field becomes more concentrated. Another obscure fact only mentioned once was that Gary also used non-magnetic spacers between each compound magnet.

Another aspect seldom if ever mentioned or replicated is the fact that many inventors used compound magnets of different strengths and spacing. So while one magnet may attract/repel another could remain neutral or have it's field displaced/combined with other magnets. Thus were left with the "52 card gambit" where the magnets/combined fields/field densities have so many possible permutations it becomes almost impossible to comprehend. A standard deck of 52 cards has 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (8.06e+67) possible combinations.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 22:40:50