PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:48:37
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
Author Topic: Induction  (Read 53963 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Here's why you are confused Exnihiloest.


Quote
I agree that you can associate a frame to a space containing a field, but contrarily to what EM suggests, you can't say that the field has a speed v relative to this frame, nor is at rest in this frame.


Frames of reference are not associated to a SPACE, where did you learn that crap?    Like I suggested get educated dude.   Secondly,   fields have a velocity.   If an electron is moving and it's field is not keeping up with it,   what does that tell you?     In ANY FRAME OF REFERENCE,  (except accelerating ones, but we won't get into that yet since you haven't mastered the basics yet)   the laws of electrodynamics hold just fine.    Two electrons repel each other the same and Coulumbs law holds just fine.   If the E fields did not keep up with these electrons, you wouldn't have this hold true.


Quote
It is a big misunderstanding to imagine a field with a speed i.e. to imagine a frame of reference in which the field would be "at rest".


You can't even agree with what your saying, your two statements above are contradictory.       If it's a "big misunderstanding" to imagine a moving field,  than it should not be a big misunderstanding to "imagine a frame of reference in which the field would be at rest."    I think there's some dissonance in your head due to your limited knowledge of electrodynamics.      

So according to your imaginary laws, if fields can't move, than there must be an ABSOLUTE frame of reference, correct?     I have news for you,  This has been disproved and that's what relativity is all about.  


Quote
This misunderstanding leads to a false paradox in Faraday motor (V in F=q.VxB is relative to the observer, not to the field, so no paradox).  

Paradoxes exist for those that don't understand, however they are excellent opportunities to learn something new and more refined and improve existing theory.


Quote
When an electron is at rest, in respect to its own reference frame in which it is at rest, none magnetic field can move it because V=0 so F=q.VxB=0, but only an electric field. For induction, this field is E=-dA/dt, therefore a time variation is needed and from the viewpoint of the electron, the force it feels is F=q.E.

Like I said, F=qE is only half the equation.    But let's work with your example here.   FYI, I can move the electrons by moving a magnetic field across them,  and it doesn't have to be non-uniform, it can be a UNIFORM magnetic field.   You see it's all relative.  the electron can be moving or the magnetic field.   It's the relative motion that matters!  




Quote
When an electron is not at rest (i.e. is moving at speed V relative to the frame of the observer, not of the magnetic field), then the observer see a force F=q.VxB acting onto the electron. But the electron doesn't see the force F=q.VxB: from its own reference frame,...


Do you think the electron cares WHO'S WATCH IT as a condition to DEVELOPING A FORCE OR NOT?   Do you think an OBSERVER sees a FORCE on the electron, BUT THE ELECTRON DOES NOT?     What kind of crap is that?   Dude, if it moves relative to the magnetic field it will experience a force.  Period!  If not no force.  So in your example, the electron moves but not relative to the magnetic field, so the magnetic field must be moving with it, so there is no force on it,  no force EXPERIENCED BY THE ELECTRON AND NO FORCE PERCEIVED BY ANY OBSERVER.    And by the way, forces are developed at 90 degrees to both the velocity and magnetic field, and an observer, moving or not, will see the side motion of the electron due to the force.

Exnihiloest, you are confused because you don't allow fields to move!   Shame on you.   ;D

EM  

PS.  By the way, when i say moving I mean TRANSLATION.  In the Homopolar generator, the magnetic field is not ROTATING about it's axis of symmetry.  This is what confuses lots of people.   In this case spinning the magnet or coil generating the mag field, about the symmetry axis accomplishes nothing perceived.
« Last Edit: 2011-08-22, 06:47:13 by EMdevices »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I'm sure it is.

Moving "spin" begets the magnetic field.  So, create a macroscopic spin field and it will induce a current in a conductor.  Like connecting to the wheel-work of nature.

 ;)

induction without moving charges...
   
Group: Guest
...If an electron is moving and it's field is not keeping up with it
...

...and so on...

If you don't say in which reference frame the electron is moving, this is not physics.
The electron is always at rest in its own reference frame, therefore its field remains constant around it, provided that the electron is not accelerated (i.e. its reference frame is inertial).
From another frame where the electron is seen to move at constant speed, the field does not move more than in the first case, in virtue of the definition of what a field is: the characterisation of local conditions in space independently of the source. What is going on is: the field intensity decreases in space behind the electron and increases ahead.
Your assertions are so confused due to a fuzzy language that doesn't fit the science strictness, that you could even say that a thing is true and also the opposite. Something logic and constructive can't be built with such erratic and vague statements.

   
Group: Guest
Quote
Moving "spin" begets the magnetic field.  So, create a macroscopic spin field and it will induce a current in a conductor.  Like connecting to the wheel-work of nature.
induction without moving charges...

The electrons don't move linearly, nevertheless they have to rotate to flip the spin.
How to rotate them without magnetic field in order we can recover their own magnetic flux (otherwise induction will be the result of the command field for the rotation)?

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr

The electrons don't move linearly, nevertheless they have to rotate to flip the spin.
How to rotate them without magnetic field in order we can recover their own magnetic flux (otherwise induction will be the result of the command field for the rotation)?


What is the command field for the rotation?

   
Group: Guest
What is the command field for the rotation?

That is my question...    :)

How to have "induction without moving charges"? You suggested a "moving spin". It should work but how to move the spin? by sequentially flipping spins of stationary electrons? how?

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
That is my question...    :)

How to have "induction without moving charges"? You suggested a "moving spin". It should work but how to move the spin? by sequentially flipping spins of stationary electrons? how?


When a conductor is connected to a source of potential, be it a ground connection or a positive terminal from a HV supply, the electrons are pointing in all directions, and as long as they point this way, there can be no current and no magnetic field.  Once the necessary conditions are made for current to flow, by forming a complete circuit, the electrons align end to end and their spins are all the same direction (circular around the wire) and this creates the magnetic field around the wire in simple terms.  If you apply this simple spin coupling approach to inductive devices such as generators, you will see that they all work this way, and Lenz's Law is always evident, and they cannot be OU.  Even the homopolar generator obey's Lenz's Law.

When the conductor is pulsed, the change in spin direction is communicated to the space around the wire and anything in this space, and other spins align to the spin of the wire's electrons.  By placing several coils in a ring, and pulsing them sequentially, you can flip the spins of a conductor placed around the coils.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Another option might be that a time-dependent electric impulse (these are treated as an indepenedent force) creates charges from the vacuum of virtual charges, and these are moved by the impulse and not by a magnetic field.

   
Group: Guest
...
By placing several coils in a ring, and pulsing them sequentially, you can flip the spins of a conductor placed around the coils.

I agree. But what we need is the contrary: to recover in coils the effect of a spin flip. The cause can't also be the effect.

Another option might be that a time-dependent electric impulse (these are treated as an indepenedent force) creates charges from the vacuum of virtual charges, and these are moved by the impulse and not by a magnetic field.

Well this is a more satisfying reply about the principle. Now how an electric impulse can flip the spins of virtual electric charges? What kind of force could exert this torque?

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I agree. But what we need is the contrary: to recover in coils the effect of a spin flip. The cause can't also be the effect.
Well this is a more satisfying reply about the principle. Now how an electric impulse can flip the spins of virtual electric charges? What kind of force could exert this torque?


Yesterday, I accepted the cold hard fact that a force cannot "create" excess energy, but only applies what it is.  I know one can induce current by applying forces, but this can never be in excess.  So, I am looking for the source again.  I had dismissed particle creation on a layman's bench as impossible, but now, I think it is possible.

The coil I am experimenting with, pulsed with 4kv DC, 2ns rise/fall, 2ns duration produces an "attractive force" that affects all materials, with heavier materials attracted more than lighter ones.  This may prove to be a charge-independent force, like gravity, but this has not been verified with charged objects.  So, is speculative.

It is known that a coil such as this, pulsed in such a way, can produce a charge on conductive materials.  This seems to be a surface charge, possible by diffusion of particles produced from the vacuum, by the impulsed field of the coil.  Are particles really produced, or it is some otehr mechanism?

Yet another possibility is that the virtual particles when ordered and in motion, can induce current.

Quote
Now how an electric impulse can flip the spins of virtual electric charges? What kind of force could exert this torque?

The virtual particles are the fields.  Won't an electric field align the virtual particles, perhaps even pull them apart?

===============================

EDIT:

The quest for alternative, fueless energy, comes down to a very basic question:  Can energy be created?

If we say "No", then our efforts are in vain, for you cannot get more out than you put in without some source for the additional energy.

If we say "Yes", we have hope, and a lot of work to do.

Anyone arbotrarily saying that energy cannot be created, must be able to answer: "How did the universe begin in the first place?"  If there was a Big Bang, then where did this matter come from?  How did it come to exist? If matter and energy are interchangable, then how can either just pop into existence to create a universe?

So, if energy can be created, how might this be accomplished?
« Last Edit: 2011-08-24, 18:30:51 by Grumpy »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Grumpy
Quote
The quest for alternative, fueless energy, comes down to a very basic question:  Can energy be created?

If we say "No", then our efforts are in vain, for you cannot get more out than you put in without some source for the additional energy.

If we say "Yes", we have hope, and a lot of work to do.

I think the question always relates fundamentally to "what" energy is?, nothing as silly as the properties of mass, force, velocity or momentum because properties are appearances which give no real indication of what is occurring on the most fundamental level relatively speaking. For example I am sitting in the middle of an empty parking lot and I hold my arm out and space my fingers one inch apart, what is in that one inch space? Some might say nothing, some might same air, some might say light and many other forms of EM energy but most would agree the energy in this space is very small. However energy is a relative term because it always relates fundamentally to the properties of the space it occupies and since the Earth is spinning at around 1000mph if I could cause what is in this "space" between my fingers to grab hold of the "space" it occupies then what is in this "space" could be considered as stationary thus it would accelerate away from me at 1000mph plus the velocity of our solar system at 570,000mph.
In this case we could assume any space has an infinite potential but the tangible things we know have limited or no interaction with the space they occupy but this is not to say external standing waves which may occupy any given space could not interact with particles giving the appearance of motion, does a particle have velocity when it is bound to a standing wave intrinsic to the space it occupies which means it is stationary?, is it moving or are we?.
As such I do not believe we have an energy crisis nor a lack of energy anywhere, what we have is a major problem with understanding what energy is on the most fundamental level and how it relates to us in reality. At this point in time everything reduces to some kind of magical virtual particles popping into and out of existence from apparently nowhere which is not really an indication that we understand anything, lol, such is life.
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
   
Group: Guest

I just come today across a new paper at arXiv: "Faraday's Lines of Force as Strings" (http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/1108.5094). The formalism is a bit complicated but it is not my point to discuss it here.
My interest is only in the idea: the electric or magnetic lines of flux are considered by the author as physical strings of quantum particles. Each charge generates a string. A string is a real object linked to a charge and obeing a dynamics. The very large number of strings follows the rules of thermodynamics.
The classical electrodynamics becomes simply a statistical view of dynamical objects: the field lines as real strings, which is the view that had Faraday with whom I now totally agree. The field lines are not virtual equipotential lines of a continuous field, but discrete strings whose the number is as important as the number of charges generating them, and that we can treat statistically.
When we speak about a "varying flux cutting a surface", we must think about a changing number of discrete lines cutting the surface and therefore cutting also the conductor that delimits the surface. This gives a physical sense to induction, which can be seen as an interaction of the strings with the charges in the induced conductor.


   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:48:37