|
|
| Author |
Message |
Chris
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:41 am Post subject:
New Electricity
|
|
|
Hi,
Now magnetism has been renamed "the lorenz force" have a look ant my web
page for a fresh look at electromagnetism. http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
It is completely free.
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joseph S. Powell, III
science forum addict
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
Chris wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
Now magnetism has been renamed "the lorenz force" have a look ant my web
page for a fresh look at electromagnetism. http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
It is completely free.
Chris.
Link doesn't work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
Hello,
I have adjusted the link and it should work in a couple of hours as the new
location (capitalisation problem) gets propagated through the internet.
So try again.
Chris.
"chuck" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Sw71g.8503$i41.5825@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Chris wrote:
Hi,
Now magnetism has been renamed "the lorenz force" have a look ant my web
page for a fresh look at electromagnetism.
http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
It is completely free.
Chris.
Link doesn't work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
Just a few comments:
In your "force on a loop in a coil" , you have a calculated 73 webers/m^2 or
a flux density of 73Tesla. This is a ridiculously high value and is not
consistent with a 400ma current in a 700 odd turn coil. You have an Hl of
313Amp turns. Fair enough.The H that you indicate appears to be completely
wrong. The flux path is not 6cm but is considerably longer.
Even if it were 6cm, the value for H that you give is high by roughly a
factor of 10. Even using this incorrect value, the flux density also appears
incorrect. It should be of the order of 0.07T (or 0.07
webers/sq.meter)-definitely not 73T. In fact this is high and 0.01 T is more
likely. This is reasonable for an air core solenoid. What value are you
using for mu0?
I don't know why the designers of particle accelerators use superconducting
windings to get fields in the order of 5 to 10T when a simple one can get
70+ T.
Your field with a single turn data is reasonable. Gauss doesn't predict a
uniform flux density within the loop.
As to the transformer. Your proposed design will, in fact , be quite
disappointing. The conventional approach of maximising the mutual flux is
well established. You are maximising leakage flux. In addition, a copper
sleeve on each winding will act as a short circuited winding- not good for a
transformer.
The motor concept is again questionable. If there is no magnetic flux, then
why have any high permeability material in the first place. After all, it is
only used to minimise the required amp turns for a given flux density and to
direct this flux where needed.
The crowning glory is the renewal of the Tesla nonsense. Tesla did great
things- particularly the induction motor but this is related to what he did
after he went off his mental rails. There is no free lunch/energy.
You have a theory but your experiments and, particularly your calculations,
don't actually bear this out.
I won't comment further on your theories- it suffices that it is the
magnetic field that we observe (and which you observed in your experiments)
, and that it is difficult to count electrons in a wire or determine the
drift velocity so why substitute rather nebulous quantities for what we can
actually measure very well.
By the way, "Lorentz Force" is named after the person who formulated it-
sometime over 100 years ago. This includes the magnetic component. You need
another name.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:IC11g.120727$zI1.38208@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: | Hi,
Now magnetism has been renamed "the lorenz force" have a look ant my web
page for a fresh look at electromagnetism.
http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
It is completely free.
Chris.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
Thank you for your commentry. I accept your greater theoretical knowlege.
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:FTx1g.39578$P01.27950@pd7tw3no...
| Quote: | Just a few comments:
In your "force on a loop in a coil" , you have a calculated 73 webers/m^2
or a flux density of 73Tesla. This is a ridiculously high value and is
not consistent with a 400ma current in a 700 odd turn coil. You have an Hl
of 313Amp turns. Fair enough.The H that you indicate appears to be
completely wrong. The flux path is not 6cm but is considerably longer.
Even if it were 6cm, the value for H that you give is high by roughly a
factor of 10. Even using this incorrect value, the flux density also
appears incorrect. It should be of the order of 0.07T (or 0.07
webers/sq.meter)-definitely not 73T. In fact this is high and 0.01 T is
more likely. This is reasonable for an air core solenoid. What value are
you using for mu0?
|
I don't know what Teslas are and my knowlege of electromagnetism was aquired
a long time ago in a normal undergaduate course. I don't know what a weber
is.
I obviously done something wrong and that does not surprise me. The "flux"
is imaginary and has no existance. (see gauss). The so called magnetic force
is due to length contraction and is a consequence of relativity theory. The
force is mediated by virtual photons.
The force on the loop was measured with a balance. The calculation, not the
one above, is the force on a loop of wire inside another loop of wire
carrying alternating current. The force is calculated by the biot savart
hypothesis and is not really a magnetic one. It is the force carried by
virtual photons from electrons in one wire to electrons in the other. This
is another complicated calculation involving numerical integration.
| Quote: | I don't know why the designers of particle accelerators use
superconducting windings to get fields in the order of 5 to 10T when a
simple one can get 70+ T.
Your field with a single turn data is reasonable. Gauss doesn't predict a
uniform flux density within the loop.
As to the transformer. Your proposed design will, in fact , be quite
disappointing. The conventional approach of maximising the mutual flux is
well established. You are maximising leakage flux. In addition, a copper
sleeve on each winding will act as a short circuited winding- not good for
a transformer.
The motor concept is again questionable. If there is no magnetic flux,
then why have any high permeability material in the first place. After
all, it is only used to minimise the required amp turns for a given flux
density and to direct this flux where needed.
|
There is no flux. The electrical currents in one winding couple to the other
by virtual photons, the copper sleeve is to reflect the photons back and
needs to be made of high conductivity copper to take large currents.
| Quote: |
The crowning glory is the renewal of the Tesla nonsense. Tesla did great
things- particularly the induction motor but this is related to what he
did after he went off his mental rails. There is no free lunch/energy.
|
All energy is free, if you burn coal the energy is free but it cost money to
dig it up. The tesla coil did, I believe, obtain energy from a fusion
process in low pressure hydrogen. I did make one as a child by copying his
design but the people of power nearly killed me for it because of the
profits they make from using coal and the fact that the use of cheap
electricity would cause massive uneployment and the power base of the rich
would go "since our society would not work if we could not make these people
work to keep them under control as our money and wealth would be destroyed".
I suggested Teslas solution about people being free and very wealthy and
further attacks occured. The freedom and wealth belong to our privildged
class and now for you this will end. My face was disfigured and my brain
damaged. The result of the decision of the rich is the destruction of our
global atmosphere. These insane men who do not want us to be free say they
will not allow another source of power until the last drop of oil is used.
The murder and mayhem that these criminals know that is coming as the
economies collapse will result in these poweful men (did I hear rothschild)
making even more money in armements and the deaths of millions on men. The
result after all the destruction will be a medieval economy with the Bible
only as education and these powerful criminals establishing complete power
over the earth with their thermonuclear engines controlled by those men and
it will be the ulimate evil empire with the men of privildge leading a life
of luxury and ease with any woman they please visciosly rulling over a
subject people many of whom will have their frontal lobe removed.
We could of had these luxuries for all and a equality fair just society with
a better happier life for all. The class structure will be rigidly enforced
and men will die leading lives of slaves. That is the hell that is coming
and basicly it already here. The Western Slave Empire is back and it will
probably last for ever.
| Quote: |
You have a theory but your experiments and, particularly your
calculations, don't actually bear this out.
I won't comment further on your theories- it suffices that it is the
magnetic field that we observe (and which you observed in your
experiments) , and that it is difficult to count electrons in a wire or
determine the drift velocity so why substitute rather nebulous quantities
for what we can actually measure very well.
|
The theories are not mine they were taught to me.
| Quote: |
By the way, "Lorentz Force" is named after the person who formulated it-
sometime over 100 years ago. This includes the magnetic component. You
need another name.
|
I did not know that.
I believe this phenomina was discovered very early and the people in power
have hidden it to prevent a better society of paradise on earth because
their lives of privilidge would be lost.
The concept of paradise on earth these criminals hate is so that their lie
of a paradise after death is forcebly believed and that gives the thugs of
the ruling class their power.
The men of power use terrible violence to enforce their rule, they know that
if they are "found out" of the crimes they commit and lies they tell to stay
in power, there would be attempts to remove them and those protests are
dealt with by lobotomising the protesters. That is how the ruling class stay
is power in the criminal evil slave western empire.
And now no power on earth can stop them destroying everything in their path.
Its all lies, remember, all lies.
Chris.
| Quote: |
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:IC11g.120727$zI1.38208@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hi,
Now magnetism has been renamed "the lorenz force" have a look ant my web
page for a fresh look at electromagnetism.
http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
It is completely free.
Chris.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:Kcy2g.6198$xt.4524@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: | Thank you for your commentry. I accept your greater theoretical knowlege.
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:FTx1g.39578$P01.27950@pd7tw3no...
Just a few comments:
In your "force on a loop in a coil" , you have a calculated 73 webers/m^2
or a flux density of 73Tesla. This is a ridiculously high value and is
not consistent with a 400ma current in a 700 odd turn coil. You have an
Hl of 313Amp turns. Fair enough.The H that you indicate appears to be
completely wrong. The flux path is not 6cm but is considerably longer.
Even if it were 6cm, the value for H that you give is high by roughly a
factor of 10. Even using this incorrect value, the flux density also
appears incorrect. It should be of the order of 0.07T (or 0.07
webers/sq.meter)-definitely not 73T. In fact this is high and 0.01 T is
more likely. This is reasonable for an air core solenoid. What value are
you using for mu0?
I don't know what Teslas are and my knowlege of electromagnetism was
aquired a long time ago in a normal undergaduate course. I don't know what
a weber is.
I obviously done something wrong and that does not surprise me. The
"flux" is imaginary and has no existance. (see gauss). The so called
magnetic force is due to length contraction and is a consequence of
relativity theory. The force is mediated by virtual photons.
--------- |
How much length contraction at drift velocities, particularly for AC ? 1
part in 10^17? possibly, which is negligable. It certainly is possible to
fudge parameters to get the answers that you want- but it is apparent that
you have no idea of the values of these parameters.
----------
| Quote: |
The force on the loop was measured with a balance. The calculation, not
the one above, is the force on a loop of wire inside another loop of wire
carrying alternating current. The force is calculated by the biot savart
hypothesis and is not really a magnetic one. It is the force carried by
virtual photons from electrons in one wire to electrons in the other. This
is another complicated calculation involving numerical integration.
-------- |
Biot-Savard - not magnetic???
And what is a "virtual" photon?. Do you have evidence of its existence? Is
it real or not? Can you detect them? Can you block or reflect them. Note
that I could put two windings of a transformer on different legs of a core
and put a copper shield between them and this would not change the behaviour
of the transformer. If I use copper as you imply, then each coil would be
encased in copper - i.e. by a shorted 1 turn winding- transformer and motor
action will be poor to non-existent.
----------------
| Quote: |
I don't know why the designers of particle accelerators use
superconducting windings to get fields in the order of 5 to 10T when a
simple one can get 70+ T.
Your field with a single turn data is reasonable. Gauss doesn't predict a
uniform flux density within the loop.
As to the transformer. Your proposed design will, in fact , be quite
disappointing. The conventional approach of maximising the mutual flux is
well established. You are maximising leakage flux. In addition, a copper
sleeve on each winding will act as a short circuited winding- not good
for a transformer.
The motor concept is again questionable. If there is no magnetic flux,
then why have any high permeability material in the first place. After
all, it is only used to minimise the required amp turns for a given flux
density and to direct this flux where needed.
There is no flux. The electrical currents in one winding couple to the
other by virtual photons, the copper sleeve is to reflect the photons back
and needs to be made of high conductivity copper to take large currents.
------------- |
True- it will get hot but it will also eliminate the interaction that you
desire.
---------
However, after seeing the following rant. I realise that rational argument
with you is not possible.
Plonk
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
| Quote: |
All energy is free, if you burn coal the energy is free but it cost money
to dig it up. The tesla coil did, I believe, obtain energy from a fusion
process in low pressure hydrogen.
I did make one as a child by copying his
design but the people of power nearly killed me for it because of the
profits they make from using coal and the fact that the use of cheap
electricity would cause massive uneployment and the power base of the rich
would go "since our society would not work if we could not make these
people work to keep them under control as our money and wealth would be
destroyed". I suggested Teslas solution about people being free and very
wealthy and further attacks occured. The freedom and wealth belong to our
privildged class and now for you this will end. My face was disfigured
and my brain damaged. The result of the decision of the rich is the
destruction of our global atmosphere. These insane men who do not want us
to be free say they will not allow another source of power until the last
drop of oil is used.
The murder and mayhem that these criminals know that is coming as the
economies collapse will result in these poweful men (did I hear
rothschild) making even more money in armements and the deaths of millions
on men. The result after all the destruction will be a medieval economy
with the Bible only as education and these powerful criminals establishing
complete power over the earth with their thermonuclear engines controlled
by those men and it will be the ulimate evil empire with the men of
privildge leading a life of luxury and ease with any woman they please
visciosly rulling over a subject people many of whom will have their
frontal lobe removed.
We could of had these luxuries for all and a equality fair just society
with a better happier life for all. The class structure will be rigidly
enforced and men will die leading lives of slaves. That is the hell that
is coming and basicly it already here. The Western Slave Empire is back
and it will probably last for ever.
You have a theory but your experiments and, particularly your
calculations, don't actually bear this out.
I won't comment further on your theories- it suffices that it is the
magnetic field that we observe (and which you observed in your
experiments) , and that it is difficult to count electrons in a wire or
determine the drift velocity so why substitute rather nebulous quantities
for what we can actually measure very well.
The theories are not mine they were taught to me.
By the way, "Lorentz Force" is named after the person who formulated it-
sometime over 100 years ago. This includes the magnetic component. You
need another name.
I did not know that.
I believe this phenomina was discovered very early and the people in power
have hidden it to prevent a better society of paradise on earth because
their lives of privilidge would be lost.
The concept of paradise on earth these criminals hate is so that their lie
of a paradise after death is forcebly believed and that gives the thugs of
the ruling class their power.
The men of power use terrible violence to enforce their rule, they know
that if they are "found out" of the crimes they commit and lies they tell
to stay in power, there would be attempts to remove them and those
protests are dealt with by lobotomising the protesters. That is how the
ruling class stay is power in the criminal evil slave western empire.
And now no power on earth can stop them destroying everything in their
path.
Its all lies, remember, all lies.
Chris.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:IC11g.120727$zI1.38208@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hi,
Now magnetism has been renamed "the lorenz force" have a look ant my web
page for a fresh look at electromagnetism.
http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
It is completely free.
Chris.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oFC2g.61178$WI1.26898@pd7tw2no...
| Quote: | ----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:Kcy2g.6198$xt.4524@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Thank you for your commentry. I accept your greater theoretical knowlege.
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:FTx1g.39578$P01.27950@pd7tw3no...
Just a few comments:
In your "force on a loop in a coil" , you have a calculated 73
webers/m^2 or a flux density of 73Tesla. This is a ridiculously high
value and is not consistent with a 400ma current in a 700 odd turn coil.
You have an Hl of 313Amp turns. Fair enough.The H that you indicate
appears to be completely wrong. The flux path is not 6cm but is
considerably longer.
Even if it were 6cm, the value for H that you give is high by roughly a
factor of 10. Even using this incorrect value, the flux density also
appears incorrect. It should be of the order of 0.07T (or 0.07
webers/sq.meter)-definitely not 73T. In fact this is high and 0.01 T is
more likely. This is reasonable for an air core solenoid. What value are
you using for mu0?
I don't know what Teslas are and my knowlege of electromagnetism was
aquired a long time ago in a normal undergaduate course. I don't know
what a weber is.
I obviously done something wrong and that does not surprise me. The
"flux" is imaginary and has no existance. (see gauss). The so called
magnetic force is due to length contraction and is a consequence of
relativity theory. The force is mediated by virtual photons.
---------
How much length contraction at drift velocities, particularly for AC ? 1
part in 10^17? possibly, which is negligable. It certainly is possible to
fudge parameters to get the answers that you want- but it is apparent that
you have no idea of the values of these parameters.
|
Nonsense look at the web page for the correct calculation.
| Quote: | ----------
The force on the loop was measured with a balance. The calculation, not
the one above, is the force on a loop of wire inside another loop of wire
carrying alternating current. The force is calculated by the biot savart
hypothesis and is not really a magnetic one. It is the force carried by
virtual photons from electrons in one wire to electrons in the other.
This is another complicated calculation involving numerical integration.
--------
Biot-Savard - not magnetic???
And what is a "virtual" photon?. Do you have evidence of its existence? Is
it real or not? Can you detect them? Can you block or reflect them. Note
that I could put two windings of a transformer on different legs of a core
and put a copper shield between them and this would not change the
behaviour of the transformer. If I use copper as you imply, then each coil
would be encased in copper - i.e. by a shorted 1 turn winding- transformer
and motor action will be poor to non-existent.
|
A virtual photon in radio engineering is the induction field it is not
radiated but returns to the ariel.
In the case you describe the coulpling is through the spin of electrons in
the core and the windings and the coupling between the spins is by virtual
photons.
| Quote: | ----------------
I don't know why the designers of particle accelerators use
superconducting windings to get fields in the order of 5 to 10T when a
simple one can get 70+ T.
Your field with a single turn data is reasonable. Gauss doesn't predict
a uniform flux density within the loop.
As to the transformer. Your proposed design will, in fact , be quite
disappointing. The conventional approach of maximising the mutual flux
is well established. You are maximising leakage flux. In addition, a
copper sleeve on each winding will act as a short circuited winding- not
good for a transformer.
The motor concept is again questionable. If there is no magnetic flux,
then why have any high permeability material in the first place. After
all, it is only used to minimise the required amp turns for a given flux
density and to direct this flux where needed.
There is no flux. The electrical currents in one winding couple to the
other by virtual photons, the copper sleeve is to reflect the photons
back and needs to be made of high conductivity copper to take large
currents.
-------------
True- it will get hot but it will also eliminate the interaction that you
desire.
---------
However, after seeing the following rant. I realise that rational argument
with you is not possible.
|
Sorry plonk but seeing my friends murdered on tv and in front of me is very
distressing. I find some of the people around me are criminally insane.
My impression is only of great destruction all around, mainly on tv and the
warning of an imminent and sudden severe shortage of fuel.
When the fuel supply get short and the oil prices socket our civilisation
will collapse and many will die.
I know its irrational. I'm sorry I havn't a clue. Adapt or die.
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:37 am Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ODR2g.10670$xt.3951@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: |
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oFC2g.61178$WI1.26898@pd7tw2no...
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:Kcy2g.6198$xt.4524@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Thank you for your commentry. I accept your greater theoretical
knowlege.
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:FTx1g.39578$P01.27950@pd7tw3no...
Just a few comments:
In your "force on a loop in a coil" , you have a calculated 73
webers/m^2 or a flux density of 73Tesla. This is a ridiculously high
value and is not consistent with a 400ma current in a 700 odd turn
coil. You have an Hl of 313Amp turns. Fair enough.The H that you
indicate appears to be completely wrong. The flux path is not 6cm but
is considerably longer.
Even if it were 6cm, the value for H that you give is high by roughly a
factor of 10. Even using this incorrect value, the flux density also
appears incorrect. It should be of the order of 0.07T (or 0.07
webers/sq.meter)-definitely not 73T. In fact this is high and 0.01 T is
more likely. This is reasonable for an air core solenoid. What value
are you using for mu0?
I don't know what Teslas are and my knowlege of electromagnetism was
aquired a long time ago in a normal undergaduate course. I don't know
what a weber is.
I obviously done something wrong and that does not surprise me. The
"flux" is imaginary and has no existance. (see gauss). The so called
magnetic force is due to length contraction and is a consequence of
relativity theory. The force is mediated by virtual photons.
---------
How much length contraction at drift velocities, particularly for AC ? 1
part in 10^17? possibly, which is negligable. It certainly is possible to
fudge parameters to get the answers that you want- but it is apparent
that you have no idea of the values of these parameters.
Nonsense look at the web page for the correct calculation.
----------
The force on the loop was measured with a balance. The calculation, not
the one above, is the force on a loop of wire inside another loop of
wire carrying alternating current. The force is calculated by the biot
savart hypothesis and is not really a magnetic one. It is the force
carried by virtual photons from electrons in one wire to electrons in
the other. This is another complicated calculation involving numerical
integration.
--------
Biot-Savard - not magnetic???
And what is a "virtual" photon?. Do you have evidence of its existence?
Is it real or not? Can you detect them? Can you block or reflect them.
Note that I could put two windings of a transformer on different legs of
a core and put a copper shield between them and this would not change the
behaviour of the transformer. If I use copper as you imply, then each
coil would be encased in copper - i.e. by a shorted 1 turn winding-
transformer and motor action will be poor to non-existent.
A virtual photon in radio engineering is the induction field it is not
radiated but returns to the ariel.
In the case you describe the coulpling is through the spin of electrons in
the core and the windings and the coupling between the spins is by virtual
photons.
----------------
I don't know why the designers of particle accelerators use
superconducting windings to get fields in the order of 5 to 10T when a
simple one can get 70+ T.
Your field with a single turn data is reasonable. Gauss doesn't predict
a uniform flux density within the loop.
As to the transformer. Your proposed design will, in fact , be quite
disappointing. The conventional approach of maximising the mutual flux
is well established. You are maximising leakage flux. In addition, a
copper sleeve on each winding will act as a short circuited winding-
not good for a transformer.
The motor concept is again questionable. If there is no magnetic flux,
then why have any high permeability material in the first place. After
all, it is only used to minimise the required amp turns for a given
flux density and to direct this flux where needed.
There is no flux. The electrical currents in one winding couple to the
other by virtual photons, the copper sleeve is to reflect the photons
back and needs to be made of high conductivity copper to take large
currents.
-------------
True- it will get hot but it will also eliminate the interaction that you
desire.
---------
However, after seeing the following rant. I realise that rational
argument with you is not possible.
Sorry plonk but seeing my friends murdered on tv and in front of me is
very distressing. I find some of the people around me are criminally
insane.
My impression is only of great destruction all around, mainly on tv and
the warning of an imminent and sudden severe shortage of fuel.
When the fuel supply get short and the oil prices socket our civilisation
will collapse and many will die.
I know its irrational. I'm sorry I havn't a clue. Adapt or die.
Chris.
|
I looked at the web page: A lot of unverifiable assumptions have been made.
The basic problem appears to be that somehow the repulsion force is due to
the assumption of 1 electron per atom per meter (n*e), and assuming that the
protons exert no electrostatic force on the electrons in the adjacent wire.
You have considered velocity and your equations reduce to a term in v/c
implying relativistic concerns. However, your equations also assume
electrostatic conditions and in that case, v/c is 0. You can't mix
electrostatic and relativistic concepts, willy nilly. Note also that the
number of atoms/meter (n) is dependent on the wire cross-section. Then n*e
is larger, so the force between two parallel wires carrying a given current
is dependent on the number of atoms per meter, the force should be larger in
the case of larger conductors. That isn't so. Does that mean a lower drift
velocity?
You don't know.
In other words, you have not established a relationship between the number
of atoms per meter and the number of electrons that are moving (or for AC
are merely wobbling back and forth ). These are things that you don't know
and can't measure.
If you want to promote a theory, then don't massage numbers to fit the
facts. That is what you have essentially done.
In addition, think of what the practical consequences of your ideas will be.
Do they fit with actual facts? If not, the theory is wrong. How does a model
based on unknowns and assumptions which in addition to having a rather
nebulous basis, and hard to impossible to measure, gain anything over what
we can measure and use for design? Your proposed transformer and motor
designs based on your ideas, reflect an amateur with a great deal of
inexperience.
I am quite willing to look at a subatomic explanation of magnetism - the why
and how- it exists- but you haven't presented one.
It appears that you have learned something with regard to virtual photons as
a theoretical concept which may or may not be true and may or may not be
involved in forces at greater than atomic distances) but you actually don't
deal with these except indicate that copper can reflect them. Why or how is
beyond me.
I repeat "plonk" which means that in the future, I will ignore you.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:45 am Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
| Quote: | I looked at the web page: A lot of unverifiable assumptions have been
made.
The basic problem appears to be that somehow the repulsion force is due to
the assumption of 1 electron per atom per meter (n*e), and assuming that
the protons exert no electrostatic force on the electrons in the adjacent
wire.
You have considered velocity and your equations reduce to a term in v/c
implying relativistic concerns. However, your equations also assume
electrostatic conditions and in that case, v/c is 0. You can't mix
electrostatic and relativistic concepts, willy nilly. Note also that the
number of atoms/meter (n) is dependent on the wire cross-section. Then
n*e is larger, so the force between two parallel wires carrying a given
current is dependent on the number of atoms per meter, the force should be
larger in the case of larger conductors. That isn't so. Does that mean a
lower drift velocity?
You don't know.
|
I cannot comment any further the theory was taught to me by professor
stannard.
| Quote: |
In other words, you have not established a relationship between the number
of atoms per meter and the number of electrons that are moving (or for AC
are merely wobbling back and forth ). These are things that you don't know
and can't measure.
|
I dont think that sort of calculation comes in to it.
| Quote: | If you want to promote a theory, then don't massage numbers to fit the
facts. That is what you have essentially done.
In addition, think of what the practical consequences of your ideas will
be. Do they fit with actual facts? If not, the theory is wrong. How does a
model based on unknowns and assumptions which in addition to having a
rather nebulous basis, and hard to impossible to measure, gain anything
over what we can measure and use for design? Your proposed transformer and
motor designs based on your ideas, reflect an amateur with a great deal
of inexperience.
|
The calculation fits the experiments exactly we did it at college.
| Quote: | I am quite willing to look at a subatomic explanation of magnetism - the
why and how- it exists- but you haven't presented one.
It appears that you have learned something with regard to virtual photons
as a theoretical concept which may or may not be true and may or may not
be involved in forces at greater than atomic distances) but you actually
don't deal with these except indicate that copper can reflect them. Why or
how is beyond me.
|
There is no magnetic field to invent an explanation of, I think you have
completly failed to understand what is actually a fairly standard university
derivation.
| Quote: |
I repeat "plonk" which means that in the future, I will ignore you.
|
Sorry but I think you are very rude.
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
No, I haven't failed to understand the derivation. However, some of the
terms as used, don't make sense . You treat n as the number of atoms per
unit length and e as the electron charge so you get n*e as the effective
line charge -apparently on the basis of 1 electron per atom (you didn't
answer that). However, you "don't think" that enters into it??? You then,
without any firm basis given, assume that n*e*v is the current. What about
the electrons that do not take part in conduction?
However, what you have presented does have a basis in theory. It is NOT a
new idea that moving charges will produce a force acting on other charges.
In other words, the flux density B can be expressed in terms of the electric
field due to a moving charge and its velocity. (W.H. Hayt "Engineering
Electromagnetics" ,2nd Edition, 1967 discusses this in a leadup to the
"Lorentz Force Equation", A brief summary is in Gourishankar & Kelly,
"Electromechanical Energy Conversion"). Also refer to Maxwell's equations.
We use the magnetic field concept because it is easy to work with, measure,
and depends on measurable values such as current (number of atoms/unit
length and drift velocity are somewhat hard to work with). Effectively, you
are not presenting "new" concepts but rather some that are well over 100
years old-possibly predating Maxwell.
Simply because "magnetic fields are due to moving charges", that doesn't
mean that they don't exist. Don't mix up the existence with the cause. The
magnetic field and its effect is the way we sense and measure the field
(region of influence).
What you have failed to do is show an understanding of what you were taught
and this is shown in the definitions of some of your terms such as "n",
some of the "applications" that you propose.
True, I have not been polite. Why? possibly because:
a) you apparently do not actually understand what you are saying.
b)Your proposed transformer and motor ideas are nonsense.
c) Your Tesla reference is another "over unity device" Ho-hum
d) Big business is after you - why?- you have nothing that is a threat.
e) You don't know what a Tesla is and haven't heard of the Lorentz force
equation.
Isn't that enough?
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:dm%2g.12221$xt.5004@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: |
I looked at the web page: A lot of unverifiable assumptions have been
made.
The basic problem appears to be that somehow the repulsion force is due
to the assumption of 1 electron per atom per meter (n*e), and assuming
that the protons exert no electrostatic force on the electrons in the
adjacent wire.
You have considered velocity and your equations reduce to a term in v/c
implying relativistic concerns. However, your equations also assume
electrostatic conditions and in that case, v/c is 0. You can't mix
electrostatic and relativistic concepts, willy nilly. Note also that the
number of atoms/meter (n) is dependent on the wire cross-section. Then
n*e is larger, so the force between two parallel wires carrying a given
current is dependent on the number of atoms per meter, the force should
be larger in the case of larger conductors. That isn't so. Does that mean
a lower drift velocity?
You don't know.
I cannot comment any further the theory was taught to me by professor
stannard.
In other words, you have not established a relationship between the
number of atoms per meter and the number of electrons that are moving (or
for AC are merely wobbling back and forth ). These are things that you
don't know and can't measure.
I dont think that sort of calculation comes in to it.
If you want to promote a theory, then don't massage numbers to fit the
facts. That is what you have essentially done.
In addition, think of what the practical consequences of your ideas will
be. Do they fit with actual facts? If not, the theory is wrong. How does
a model based on unknowns and assumptions which in addition to having a
rather nebulous basis, and hard to impossible to measure, gain anything
over what we can measure and use for design? Your proposed transformer
and motor designs based on your ideas, reflect an amateur with a great
deal of inexperience.
The calculation fits the experiments exactly we did it at college.
I am quite willing to look at a subatomic explanation of magnetism - the
why and how- it exists- but you haven't presented one.
It appears that you have learned something with regard to virtual photons
as a theoretical concept which may or may not be true and may or may not
be involved in forces at greater than atomic distances) but you actually
don't deal with these except indicate that copper can reflect them. Why
or how is beyond me.
There is no magnetic field to invent an explanation of, I think you have
completly failed to understand what is actually a fairly standard
university derivation.
I repeat "plonk" which means that in the future, I will ignore you.
Sorry but I think you are very rude.
Chris.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject:
Re: New Electricity
|
|
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:AOh3g.69988$WI1.24726@pd7tw2no...
| Quote: |
No, I haven't failed to understand the derivation. However, some of the
terms as used, don't make sense . You treat n as the number of atoms per
unit length
|
I think n was the number of electrons per unit length. That is what I meant.
and e as the electron charge so you get n*e as the effective
| Quote: | line charge -apparently on the basis of 1 electron per atom (you didn't
answer that). However, you "don't think" that enters into it??? You then,
without any firm basis given, assume that n*e*v is the current. What about
the electrons that do not take part in conduction? They do not count
because they do not move.
However, what you have presented does have a basis in theory. It is NOT a
new idea that moving charges will produce a force acting on other charges.
In other words, the flux density B can be expressed in terms of the
electric field due to a moving charge and its velocity. (W.H. Hayt
"Engineering Electromagnetics" ,2nd Edition, 1967 discusses this in a
leadup to the "Lorentz Force Equation", A brief summary is in Gourishankar
& Kelly, "Electromechanical Energy Conversion"). Also refer to Maxwell's
equations. We use the magnetic field concept because it is easy to work
with, measure, and depends on measurable values such as current (number of
atoms/unit length and drift velocity are somewhat hard to work with).
Effectively, you are not presenting "new" concepts but rather some that
are well over 100 years old-possibly predating Maxwell.
|
I just showed that there was no magnetic field. The effect is due to the
force between charges.
| Quote: | Simply because "magnetic fields are due to moving charges", that doesn't
mean that they don't exist. Don't mix up the existence with the cause.
The magnetic field and its effect is the way we sense and measure the
field (region of influence).
|
You seem to have failed completely to understand this concept which as I say
was taught to me by Professor Stannard.
| Quote: | What you have failed to do is show an understanding of what you were
taught and this is shown in the definitions of some of your terms such as
"n", some of the "applications" that you propose.
|
It is likely that my definitions are not well presented.
| Quote: |
True, I have not been polite. Why? possibly because:
a) you apparently do not actually understand what you are saying.
b)Your proposed transformer and motor ideas are nonsense.
|
There is nothing wrong with them.
| Quote: | c) Your Tesla reference is another "over unity device" Ho-hum
|
I only read a description.
| Quote: | d) Big business is after you - why?- you have nothing that is a threat.
|
It is not big business, it is the Church.
| Quote: | e) You don't know what a Tesla is and haven't heard of the Lorentz force
equation.
|
No that is absolutely true. I fail to any significance in not knowing
something that does not feature in my discusion.
| Quote: |
Isn't that enough?
|
Yes, I'll just crawl away and hide.
| Quote: |
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
|
X
> ---------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:26 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgage Calculator | Send Money Online | MySpace Layouts | Infrared Sauna | McDonalds
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Electromagnetics
