PopularFX
Home Help Search
Advanced search 
Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2025-02-19, 14:35:47
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
Author Topic: A Paper on the Propagation of Magnetic Waves in Soft Iron  (Read 7085 times)
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 77

Hello Friends,
I have come by a paper that might interest some of you.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25138615#metadata_info_tab_contents


   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Interesting paper MasterBlaster, thanks for sharing :)

This paper was written right around the time that long-range telegraph was beginning to be developed+implemented, and there was still much confusion and headaches with regards to maintaining consistent phase angle / solving dissipation problems.    'Impedance matching' was a thing that hadn't quite been developed yet (there wasn't even a 'henry' back then :o).  So in this paper really gives you an idea what they were trying to map out and solve.

Oliver Heaviside wrote his Telegraph equation / transmission line formulas in 1876 just a few years prior to this paper (1880), but that era I suppose information took quite a while to spread and be tested/adopted among the rest of the community+world.
« Last Edit: 2022-08-30, 00:19:50 by Hakasays »


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
It is interesting from the historical point of view, not scientific. All the author's astonishments about delays and phases have long been perfectly explained.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
If you treat magnetic wave propagation inside a ferromagnetic rod as a transmission line you find that the wave impedance is imaginary (imaginary in the math sense meaning reactive with no real component).  Transmission line theory can handle this.  When you do the math you find that such a line terminated in a capacitive reactance can offer an input impedance that has a negative resistance.  That offers the possibility of a self sustaining resonance.  So I think there is still the possibility for astonishment in this world.

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
If you treat magnetic wave propagation inside a ferromagnetic rod as a transmission line you find that the wave impedance is imaginary (imaginary in the math sense meaning reactive with no real component).  Transmission line theory can handle this.  When you do the math you find that such a line terminated in a capacitive reactance can offer an input impedance that has a negative resistance.  That offers the possibility of a self sustaining resonance.  So I think there is still the possibility for astonishment in this world.

Smudge

Hi Smudge,

This is very interesting idea, perhaps you could expand it a little more ?

Thanks,
Vasik

Edit: I see it now, managed to open the link :)

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
If you treat magnetic wave propagation inside a ferromagnetic rod as a transmission line you find that the wave impedance is imaginary (imaginary in the math sense meaning reactive with no real component).  Transmission line theory can handle this.  When you do the math you find that such a line terminated in a capacitive reactance can offer an input impedance that has a negative resistance.

Smudge

That is elegant and insane; I love it ;D

However if this system were symmetric, would the capacitive reactance on the input cancel out the gains?  I take it the induction would have to be magnetic and the 'load' capacitive?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Guest
However if this system were symmetric, would the capacitive reactance on the input cancel out the gains?  I take it the induction would have to be magnetic and the 'load' capacitive?

But if you switch capacitor with proper phase ;)

PS I guess now everyone who interested should see how this works... and how similar it is to another device discussed here :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
That is elegant and insane; I love it ;D

However if this system were symmetric, would the capacitive reactance on the input cancel out the gains?  I take it the induction would have to be magnetic and the 'load' capacitive?
Here is a paper on the magnetic delay line.  The arguments about longitudinal waves on your benches might take note that in the air outside the ferromagnetic rods the wave is transverse but inside it is longitudinal.  Same goes for the conductor in the twin wire transmission line, inside the conductor there is a longitudinal wave.

Smudge   
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
A calculation made with the equations from the known laws of electromagnetism cannot result in a pure negative resistance, which would be equivalent to saying that energy comes out of nowhere, and the internal coherence of these laws forbids it. We can see that this is not the case, the impedance has a reactive component.

The impedance only makes sense for an established regime. During the establishment of the regime, the elements L and C of the circuit absorb energy as the electric wave progresses in the line, and this energy is then maintained, in the form of reactive energy, or standing wave when the impedance matching generator / line / load is not correct and the length of line is not negligible compared to the wavelengths of the signals.
The reactive component of the impedance absorbs energy and stores it, and the negative resistance allows to recover part of this energy. No free lunch.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
A calculation made with the equations from the known laws of electromagnetism cannot result in a pure negative resistance, which would be equivalent to saying that energy comes out of nowhere, and the internal coherence of these laws forbids it. We can see that this is not the case, the impedance has a reactive component.
If we have a circuit with both positive and negative reactance (L and C) and negative resistance then it will self oscillate if that negative resistance exceeds any positive resistance in the circuit.  The oscillations will build up exponentially.  Do the math!!
Quote
The impedance only makes sense for an established regime. During the establishment of the regime, the elements L and C of the circuit absorb energy as the electric wave progresses in the line, and this energy is then maintained, in the form of reactive energy, or standing wave when the impedance matching generator / line / load is not correct and the length of line is not negligible compared to the wavelengths of the signals.
The reactive store of energy is not maintained in a standing wave, it is continually completely lost and then restored at the cyclic rate (the applied frequency).
Quote
The reactive component of the impedance absorbs energy and stores it, and the negative resistance allows to recover part of this energy.
Not true, the negative resistance (if it exists) doesn't recover part of that energy, it adds energy as it moves through the resistor from the L to the C or vice versa.
Quote
No free lunch.
That is the standard view but we are here to challenge that.  If you believe that standard science cannot be challenged, why are you here on this forum?  Perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with the transmission line equations in my paper that clearly do predict a negative resistance.

Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
"Reaction Machines" in Charles Steinmetz' famous book Alternating Current Phenomena covers some of the concept and mathematics as well:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Steinmetz/Reaction%20Machines%20chapter%20in%20Alternating%20Current%20Phenomona.pdf


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
@Smudge

A standing wave only attenuates if there are losses in the line.
Now you talk about negative reactance but there is none in your paper, only negative resistance.
Since negative resistance produces energy, if it does not come from the reactive elements, you will have to explain where it comes from, and why your calculation from the equations of standard physics leads to a result contrary to standard physics, which implies an internal inconsistency of the equations of standard physics, which you still have to specify.

If what you said was correct, then the line would produce power even before a generator was connected. And the millions of engineers and technicians who worked on the lines never noticed this, what fools!

Let's be clear: I think that standard science is not complete and that it can be challenged or completed, which is partly why I am here.
Conversely, if you don't consider it solid, why do you use its equations?

First, the coherence of its formalism forbids the creation of energy in a closed system. So a calculation based on the equations of standard physics that leads to a creation of energy ex-nihilo, negative resistance or not, is wrong.
Secundly, to challenge it with simple devices as well known as a line of which all kinds have been manipulated for decades by people in the business, is to believe oneself smarter than them. It is a right to believe so, and it may be true, but then it will be necessary to provide the experimental demonstration.



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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
@Smudge

A standing wave only attenuates if there are losses in the line.
Now you talk about negative reactance but there is none in your paper, only negative resistance.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear.  In the imaginary plane (multiplied by j or i, sqrt-1) this can be positive or negative, I thought this is well known, hence my reference to L or C reactances.
Quote
Since negative resistance produces energy, if it does not come from the reactive elements, you will have to explain where it comes from, and why your calculation from the equations of standard physics leads to a result contrary to standard physics, which implies an internal inconsistency of the equations of standard physics, which you still have to specify.

If what you said was correct, then the line would produce power even before a generator was connected. And the millions of engineers and technicians who worked on the lines never noticed this, what fools!
How many engineers have worked on lines that have a characteristic impedance that is predominantly imaginary reactive?  In my long experience (over 70 years) the impedance of lines has always been real resistive.

Quote
Let's be clear: I think that standard science is not complete and that it can be challenged or completed, which is partly why I am here.
Conversely, if you don't consider it solid, why do you use its equations?
Because in this case it deals with imaginary reactive lines that to my knowledge  have not been experimented with.
Quote
First, the coherence of its formalism forbids the creation of energy in a closed system. So a calculation based on the equations of standard physics that leads to a creation of energy ex-nihilo, negative resistance or not, is wrong.
This reactive transmission of energy cannot occur in free space.  Thus we are dealing with transmission through some material that now involves atoms, the particles that are the atoms and of course the strange quantum world  there.  So I see the possibility of energy being transduced from that world.  Obviously you don't agree.
Quote
Secundly, to challenge it with simple devices as well known as a line of which all kinds have been manipulated for decades by people in the business, is to believe oneself smarter than them. It is a right to believe so, and it may be true, but then it will be necessary to provide the experimental demonstration.
And I did so in my magnetic delay transformer thread, but without success.  No reason to give up though.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
...
How many engineers have worked on lines that have a characteristic impedance that is predominantly imaginary reactive?
...

The fact that it is a line does not change the principle. A line is a network of L and C elements, it can even be modeled with them, and no passive network provides energy. When a line is not terminated by a resistive load of the same impedance, the impedance seen by the generator is reactive. All engineers have had to deal with open or short-circuited lines, or lines terminated by a reactive load, without ever noticing any anomaly.
Moreover, when the load or generator is not matched, the reactive impedance will depend on the frequency, because of the transmission delays independent of the signal period. The voltage and current nodes along the line do not fall in the same places depending on the frequency. I don't see why this wouldn't be the case with a natively reactive line, and yet your impedance is unique. You should start from the equations of physics, not from those of engineering, which correspond to particular cases.

In your paper you refer to prof. Turtur. Although he is an academic, the only difference between Turtur and a proponent of perpetual motion is that he arbitrarily attributes the cause of perpetual motion to the ZPE. But his engine has never worked with the ZPE. In a vacuum it doesn't work anymore. Turtur is not a serious reference. When what you claim is extraordinary, the experimental demo must be unambiguous.
If you don't experiment with the line yourself, I think you'll have a hard time convincing someone competent in the field to do it.



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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
The fact that it is a line does not change the principle. A line is a network of L and C elements, it can even be modeled with them, and no passive network provides energy.

Ferromagnetic transmission lines can be more difficult to model since L changes dynamically with current.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
Ferromagnetic transmission lines can be more difficult to model since L changes dynamically with current.

Electromagnetic software, such as CST studio, take this into account, you just have to provide them with the B/H curve.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
The fact that it is a line does not change the principle. A line is a network of L and C elements, it can even be modeled with them, and no passive network provides energy.
There was a time when I would have agreed with you.  But that was before I taught myself to solve in the magnetic domain where flux is treated like current (or magnetic displacement current) and mmf is treated like voltage.  Most people in this world do not take that beyond magnetic Ohm's Law, dealing with variations of materials or dimensions around a closed magnetic circuit, like air gaps.  Few can solve dynamically.  Taking the twin wire transmission line shown in my paper it has distributed inductance and capacitance along its length, hence your L and C elements apply.  Now take my twin ferrite rod line, what is the distributed L and C there?  You can't answer that.  It can appear as a ladder network of reluctances, with distributed series reluctance and distributed shunt permeance along the line.  That does not tell you the velocity which as you know can depend on many factors like domain wall velocity.  And it does not tell you what the effect of those electric field lines are.  I can tell you that the dielectric surrounding the ferrite rods will carry displacement current, and that will result in the series reluctance chain having a magnetic "component" in series that behaves nothing like electrical ones.  I have used D as the symbol for this component, and it obeys mmf=-D*d2(flux)/dt2, the second time differential of the flux.  That too has an influence on the propagation velocity.  So please don't tell me this line is a network of L and C elements.
Quote
When a line is not terminated by a resistive load of the same impedance, the impedance seen by the generator is reactive. All engineers have had to deal with open or short-circuited lines, or lines terminated by a reactive load, without ever noticing any anomaly.
Moreover, when the load or generator is not matched, the reactive impedance will depend on the frequency, because of the transmission delays independent of the signal period. The voltage and current nodes along the line do not fall in the same places depending on the frequency.
I don't need you to teach me classical line stuff.
Quote
I don't see why this wouldn't be the case with a natively reactive line, and yet your impedance is unique.
Yes, unique as I mention above.
Quote
You should start from the equations of physics, not from those of engineering, which correspond to particular cases.
Oh, I thought I was using equations of physics that covered all cases and not the particular L and C ones you have in mind.
Quote
If you don't experiment with the line yourself, I think you'll have a hard time convincing someone competent in the field to do it.
Sadly my experimental days are over as I draw ever closer to end-of-life.  I am trying hard to convince others but I keep getting negative reactions from certain members of this forum.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
There was a time when I would have agreed with you.  But that was before I taught myself to solve in the magnetic domain where flux is treated like current (or magnetic displacement current)

Unlike current, which is the flow of charges, a magnetic flux is not the flow of any substance. There is no displacement along the magnetic circuit. The field lines are always looped and expand or contract around the conductor according to the current flowing through it.
I know you know this. While engineering simplifications by treating the flow as a current are sometimes convenient, they too often lead to false reasoning in physics, such as the idea of Bearden's MEG and the "magnetic transistor" in general.
In my opinion the problem should be treated by physics, not by engineering. By characterizing your line by the impedance, you are in fact considering it a priori as a simple RLC network, by definition of what an impedance is.

Quote
I can tell you that the dielectric surrounding the ferrite rods will carry displacement current, and that will result in the series reluctance chain having a magnetic "component" in series that behaves nothing like electrical ones.  I have used D as the symbol for this component, and it obeys mmf=-D*d2(flux)/dt2, the second time differential of the flux.  That too has an influence on the propagation velocity.  So please don't tell me this line is a network of L and C elements.

A line is a quadrupole. The input is a dipole. The impedance of a dipole is expressed as Z = R + j X. When X is positive, the impedance is inductive. When X is negative, the impedance is capacitive. So if your line is something else, it is not by the impedance that you can characterize its specificities.

Quote
Yes, unique as I mention above.

Either you place yourself in the case of a quasi-stationary regime, and then the impedance doesn't depend on the frequency but talking about "line" doesn't make sense anymore, it's a simple network, or you place yourself in the usual framework of use of lines, where the length is greater than the wavelength of the signals, so there is propagation. Then the impedance does not depend on the frequency, but only if the load matches the line impedance. In other cases, so in the general case, it depends on it, and even drastically if the line is for example a quarter wave or half wave.

Quote
Sadly my experimental days are over as I draw ever closer to end-of-life.  I am trying hard to convince others but I keep getting negative reactions from certain members of this forum.

Not from me anyway, when I criticize it's because I see weak points and I don't agree, I say why, it's not to denigrate.
I generally like your ideas and formalizing them as you do with rigor puts you far above the nonsense we usually see in the FE. If a good idea can appear, it's from works like yours.
But I don't see all your work as being of equal value. This one on lines is not based on physics but on engineering formulas that apply to ordinary lines. Moreover it is contrary to the general principle that, except by integrating an exotic energy source, no overunity can come from the equations of classical physics whose coherence forbids the creation of energy ex nihilo.
Your work on the Magnetic Delay Lines seems therefore to me to be questionable, but this does not invalidate my consideration for your work in general, especially on the potential vector.
As I see your brain working well :), I thought maybe the arms too and you could still experiment. But I understand that with age it can become difficult or painful, I feel sorry for you and understand perfectly that you stay in the realm of ideas.
« Last Edit: 2022-09-06, 15:30:33 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 77

Propagation of Magnetization of Iron as affected hy the Electric Currents in the Iron

This is a rare find but worthy of posting:
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
Propagation of Magnetization of Iron as affected hy the Electric Currents in the Iron
...

This is a factor, but not the only cause. The magnetization of an insulating ferrite also has a propagation delay.
The maximum velocity of an electric or magnetic wave in a medium of permittivity ε and permeability µ is v = 1 /√(ε.µ) .


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
Unlike current, which is the flow of charges, a magnetic flux is not the flow of any substance. There is no displacement along the magnetic circuit. The field lines are always looped and expand or contract around the conductor according to the current flowing through it.
I know you know this. While engineering simplifications by treating the flow as a current are sometimes convenient, they too often lead to false reasoning in physics, such as the idea of Bearden's MEG and the "magnetic transistor" in general.
In my opinion the problem should be treated by physics, not by engineering.
I make no apology for treating closed magnetic circuits in a manner identical to electrical ones as the math has the same formalism.  There is no false reasoning here. 
Quote
By characterizing your line by the impedance, you are in fact considering it a priori as a simple RLC network, by definition of what an impedance is.
And a simple RLC network can show anomalous behavior if R is negative.
Quote
A line is a quadrupole. The input is a dipole. The impedance of a dipole is expressed as Z = R + j X. When X is positive, the impedance is inductive. When X is negative, the impedance is capacitive.
Clearly what you consider to be a dipole or a quadrupole is not what I am taught.  If you consider an inductor to be a magnetic dipole and a capacitor to be an electric dipole then by mixing the two types of pole then perhaps that could be some sort of quadrupole representation for a transmission line, but mixed poles do not a true quadrupole make.   

Quote
Either you place yourself in the case of a quasi-stationary regime, and then the impedance doesn't depend on the frequency but talking about "line" doesn't make sense anymore, it's a simple network, or you place yourself in the usual framework of use of lines, where the length is greater than the wavelength of the signals, so there is propagation. Then the impedance does not depend on the frequency, but only if the load matches the line impedance. In other cases, so in the general case, it depends on it, and even drastically if the line is for example a quarter wave or half wave.
I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
I make no apology for treating closed magnetic circuits in a manner identical to electrical ones as the math has the same formalism.  There is no false reasoning here.  And a simple RLC network can show anomalous behavior if R is negative.

I did not say it is wrong, I even said "engineering simplifications by treating the flux as a current are sometimes convenient".
So no false reasoning on your part if we stick to engineering calculations as you do, but the idea taken up by others who see the flux as a current leads to misunderstandings, such as the belief that we can modulate the flux as a current, which led to the MEG dead end.

Quote
And a simple RLC network can show anomalous behavior if R is negative.

If R is negative, a reasoning strictly limited to RLC network engineering equations, see extra energy. The problem is that engineering equations derive from physics, whose formalism of all theories implies conservation of energy.
Finding R to be negative demonstrates an error somewhere in the use of the formulas. This is why I say that one must go through the basic equations of physics, either to find the error, or to specify the exact source of the extra-energy if one really believes that the equations could show it, which I doubt very much given the internal consistency of the theories of physics.

Quote
Clearly what you consider to be a dipole or a quadrupole is not what I am taught. 

A quadrupole is a very simple device with 2 inputs and 2 outputs. The currents and voltages going in and out are enough to characterize it entirely. That's what I'm talking about. The French Wikipedia explains it well, here is the translation:
https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Quadrip%C3%B4le?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en

It's with a quadrupole that we represent a line, so I don't see why yours couldn't be.


« Last Edit: 2022-09-17, 08:18:03 by F6FLT »


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
A quadrupole is a very simple device with 2 inputs and 2 outputs. The currents and voltages going in and out are enough to characterize it entirely. That's what I'm talking about. The French Wikipedia explains it well, here is the translation:
https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Quadrip%C3%B4le?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en
OK, I understand what you mean by dipole and quadrupole.  I go back a long way and my view of a pole was a point object, in magnetics a N or S pole and in electrics a positive or negative pole.  I now see that modern science treats circuit nodes as poles.  Going back to your original statement
Quote
A line is a quadrupole. The input is a dipole. The impedance of a dipole is expressed as Z = R + j X. When X is positive, the impedance is inductive. When X is negative, the impedance is capacitive.
That is the impedance expressed entirely within the frequency domain and shows how the impedance (ratio of voltage to current) varies with frequency.  It does not show how the impedance varies with time and since time delay along the line is a crucial factor that math is not enough to tell you all you need to know.  Yes you can use Fourier transforms to convert from one domain to the other but even that can hide what is really going on.
Quote
So if your line is something else, it is not by the impedance that you can characterize its specificities.
Quote
It's with a quadrupole that we represent a line, so I don't see why yours couldn't be.
Your quadrupole transmission line of series inductors and shunt capacitors carries a longitudinal wave of current along the inductors.  (Perhaps the arguments going on elsewhere on this forum about longitudinal waves should take note that such waves really do exist.)  My transmission line of a series ferromagnetic rod carries a longitudinal wave of flux along the rod.  The time varying A field around the rod creating an E field in the dielectric there hence driving displacement current around the rod that in turn induces flux into the rod affects the propagation and can be modeled as a shunt effect.  Thus I can create a quadrupole representation for the transmission line but the impedances are NOT your R + jX.  IMO transmission along the rod is not modeled by the classical distributed LC transmission line, and I still think there are possibilities to explore here.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097
...
Yes you can use Fourier transforms to convert from one domain to the other but even that can hide what is really going on.

The frequency and time domains are mathematically equivalent representations, therefore one can use either one, it is not a problem of physics but of interpretation which can be conceptually more or less clear depending on the choice and what one is trying to see.

Quote
I can create a quadrupole representation for the transmission line but the impedances are NOT your R + jX.  IMO transmission along the rod is not modeled by the classical distributed LC transmission line, and I still think there are possibilities to explore here.

An impedance is always of the form R+jX, by definition.
And it is from the formula of the impedance of a line that you have developed your paper, to tell us now that it cannot be modelled classically by an LC distribution. Your conclusion is therefore in opposition to the premises. And you don't see any inconsistency in this process?

If a line terminated by a reactive load, a case that occurs all the time in the RF domain, created energy, it would have already been seen. On the other hand, your negative resistance is only negative at a given frequency, the one validating your β parameter. But your negative resistance would produce direct current. And this without even using a signal of the frequency where the resistance is negative! And you don't see any inconsistency?

I'm sorry, but all this seems so implausible that I wouldn't even want to spend time looking for a formal error.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
An impedance is always of the form R+jX, by definition.
And it is from the formula of the impedance of a line that you have developed your paper, to tell us now that it cannot be modelled classically by an LC distribution. Your conclusion is therefore in opposition to the premises. And you don't see any inconsistency in this process?

If a line terminated by a reactive load, a case that occurs all the time in the RF domain, created energy, it would have already been seen.
It seems you have not quite followed the argument.  The classical line that has been extensively examined in the RF domain as you say does not have a reactive Z0.  Such lines would not exhibit negative input resistance under any conditions.  Such lines terminated in their characteristic Z0 have E and H fields that are in phase.  The magnetic delay line is different, its E and H fields are at 90 degree phase, the Z0 is reactive.  This I have stated clearly in my paper.  And the standing waves brought about by the capacitive termination could lead to anomalous effects since we are dealing with spin waves within the material.

I have a lot of data on measurements taken on a large ferrous ring core with diametrically emplaced small windings so that there is a magnetic delay between input and output.  This exhibits the expected resonant peak at the resonant frequency of the terminating capacitor and the inductance of the output coil, but it also exhibits another peak at a higher frequency.  This peak coincides exactly with the frequency where the math tells us the input resistance should go negative, but sadly not quite OU.  The fact that that non-resonant peak was even there tells me something unusual is going on.  Since the time delay is not classical sqrt(LC) but is domain wall movements I am still of the opinion that it is worthy of more examination.   
Quote
On the other hand, your negative resistance is only negative at a given frequency, the one validating your β parameter. But your negative resistance would produce direct current. And this without even using a signal of the frequency where the resistance is negative!
I think you should review your thinking, that is just nonsense.  If it can only occur at a given frequency it cannot occur at DC.
Quote
I'm sorry, but all this seems so implausible that I wouldn't even want to spend time looking for a formal error.
There you go again, by your thinking there must be an error.  Why don't you open your mind to things being possible, that current science may have overlooked these possibilities?

Smudge
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2025-02-19, 14:35:47
Loading...