FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Perpetual Motion Machines
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [37 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lpdsa2pqrna7i7scehpggfimn2soomf9ht@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:03:02 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:



Quote:

What aether? According to the standard model there is
no aether.

OK, I agree, no aether. The energy of spontaneous production of
particle/antiparticle pairs originates elsewhere.

I have an energy balance problem with gravitational energy loss (or
gain) by photons. Where does the energy go and what form does the
lost energy convert to?

If photons cannot have zero energy, and all energy within a black hole
became photons, wouldn't these photons remove (all) energy from the
black hole? Perhaps the energy that photons lose becomes more
photons?

Photons carry energy in the form of momentum. So what's
the problem? If a photon is absorbed by a system, the
momentum is transferred to that system and shows up as
kinetic energy of one form or another (translational,
rotational).

Photons do not escape from within a black hole. They do,
however, comprise a portion of the Hawking radiation.

Quote:

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to think that
gravity (gravitons?) is somehow being turned into
particles of matter and antimatter. This is not so.

I think you claimed that mini black holes exploded. How?

Hawking radiation. Black hole temperature increases with
deceasing size/mass. Tiny ones evaporate so quickly that
it is equivalent to an explosion.

The rate of evaporation is determined by what is called
the Hawking temperature, which is inversely proportional
to the mass of the black hole.

Have a gander at this page for a derivation of the
evaporation time:

http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/essays/black-hole-evaporation.html

Quote:

Various probability functions and aether are the energy sources I
heard of. Current theory (which I do not agree with) is that particle
separation at the event horizon causes black hole energy loss. For
probability to increase with gravity, the energy associated with the
vacuum fluctuations must also be influenced by gravity - the stability
of the reaction product (particle-antiparticle pair) is not greatly
enhanced by gravity.

Particle/antiparticle pairs come into existence in a
probabilistic fashion at a rate determined by the
stress-energy of the local space. Probability isn't a
source of energy or a mechanism, it's a description of
the rates and energy distributions involved.

As a black hole loses mass, the schwarzchild radius
shrinks and the black hole's singularity gets closer
to the "surface", so to speak. Thus the stress energy
(measure of curvature of space) grows more extreme in
the near vicinity of the black hole as the black hole
shrinks.

[snip]

Quote:

A practical reality is that inductance, magnetism and current require
a closed circuit. A theoretical reality is that they do not require a
closed circuit. Perhaps both are correct. This problem seems similar
to Newtonian physics not necessarily applying to atomic level physics.

I must disagree. A charged body set into motion
mechanically will constitute a current. Just because
it's technologically easier to move current around
in conductors using a potential difference (battery)
to drive it, doesn't mean that it's the definition or
the only way it can be.

The manipulation of statically charged objects is a
classic case in point, all those experiments with
electrophorus's and Leyden jars and such, where
charges are moved from body to body by contact,
a current of charge flowing between without a
battery or closed circuit in sight.

Quote:

Anyways, my vote goes with Maxwell who says that a moving
charge produces a magnetic field.


Movement of an electron through a vacuum does not convert the vacuum
into a conductor. Only current through a conductor produces
magnetism.

Your ideas are getting stranger. Why do you think that
space would have to be a conductor in order for charge
to move through it? Electron beams are fired through
evacuated CRTs all the time, and constitute a perfectly
respectable current.

Conductors are most certainly *not* required to form
a magnetic field. Any moving charges will do. Again,
see Maxwell.

So you also see the conflict between the two 'realities'.

I see no conflict. Just because using conductors to constrain
the motions of charges is good, simple technology does not
make what happens without their benefit any more "otherworldly".


Quote:

In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.

Yet Maxwell says this isn't so. Perhaps you are confusing
the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by accelerated
charges (which propagates decoupled from the charge) with the
magnetic field that is associated with a moving charge?

Perhaps Maxwell's electron needed a conductor to produce magnetism.

No. Absolutely not. Look at the equation.

ibid

ibid^2

[snip]

Quote:

It is tough enough to detect a single electron with a photomultiplier,
even tougher to detect the magnetic field of a group electrons that
are not being accelerated by voltage. I would be surprised if a
measurable magnetic field from a group of drifting electrons outside
an electric field could be measured. Of course I have been surprised
(wrong) before.

It's old hat. Particle beams are commonplace. The problem with
dense currents travelling this way is that mutual repulsion
tends to broaden the beam, but they carry current nonetheless,
and produce the expected magnetic field. Again, see Maxwell.

Of course Maxwell was right, too bad we do not have a practical test
of free electrons vs magnetism.

Electron beam currents inside evacuated chambers can be in
the range of several milliampers to even amperes, and a
sensitive compass needle (or even more sensitive Hall effect
device) brought close will detect the magnetic field of the
electrons travelling through vacuum.

Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Rutherford based nucleus size on electrostatics and mass, as
determined by collision experiments. That does not limit other forms
of energy in a nucleus to a distance within the electrostatic
boundary.

Yes, and so what? Again, what does this have to do with
your allusion to infinities?

For Rutherford's experiment, alpha particle velocity was 2x10**7 m/s

The ratio of mass energy to kinetic energy of an alpha particle is:

(2x10**7)**2
----------------- = 4.4x10**-3
(3x10**Cool**2

If an alpha particle / anti-alpha particle collision occured, at least
1.0044 times more kinetic energy would be expended, then would be
predicted by E = mc**2 without electrostatic energy.

If the detected energy is below mc**2 + the required energy for
electrostatic repulsion, then an alpha particle does not have enough
electrostatic energy for backscatter.

Again, so what?

[snip]

Quote:

This is a bad example. The magnetic field in your cyclotron
is constant, not changing, and the kinetic energy gain is
being provided by an oscillating electric field.

When you move a magnet over a nail, the nail moves and can
be attracted to the magnet with a good deal of acceleration.
Every electron (and proton) in that nail has experienced
a change in kinetic energy as a result.

If I may suggest, you need to look into the effects of
magnetic field divergence. Again, see Maxwell.

Of course acceleration can occur between two magnets. An electron is
different. A magnetic field cannot accelerate an electron.

Pedantic point: An electron moving through a *static*
field will be caused to move in a circular path. Although
the kinetic energy of the electron is not charged, it is
most certainly accelerated since its direction of travel
(velocity vector) is changing.

Take a look at the force equation:

f = q*v x B (x is the cross product).

If B is static (constant) then the force will constant
too, and perpendicular to the instantaneous velocity
vector. This satisfies the conditions for circular
motion. But if B is *not* static, but changes direction,
then the motion will not be circular and any desired
change of velocity (kinetic energy) can be accomplished
through a suitable manipulation of B over time.

Quote:

Neither an RF field nor an electrostatic field is magnetic field.
Either can taint the effects of a changing magnetic field on an
electron.

RF field is both electric and magnetic - electromagnetic
to be precise.

Cyclotrons typically employ large static magnetic fields
to provide the circular trajectories and use electric
fields to provide the kinetic energy boost because it's
the technologically simplest way to go.


Quote:

Either moving a conductor through a magnetic field (generater) or
changing magnetic field strength near a conductor (transformer) is
work that is converted to magnetism. The energy of the moving
conductor is not converted to electron kinetic energy.

So, if the changing magnetic field in the primary of
the transformer is causing a current to flow in the
secondary, and this is being accomplished through magnetic
induction, you're claiming that the resulting moving
electrons that comprise said current do not have kinetic
energy?

The electrons have kinetic energy. Magnetism does not increase
electron kinetic energy.

A changing field does. Hence the need to move either the
coil or the magnet in the classic Faraday's law
demonstration.

Quote:

In a generator, if it's not work being done by moving the
conductor through the magnetic field (or equivalently,
moving the magnetic field through the conductor), then
where is the energy in the resulting current coming from,
and why do we need to pour so much energy into it to get
current out?

Kinetic energy converts to electrical current and magnetism, but
producing current and magnetism does not necessarily increase electron
kinetic energy.

Electrons that weren't in motion are set in motion to
constitute a current. Electrons have mass, therefore
electrons in motion have kinetic energy.

Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Perhaps magnetism and current are independent forms of energy,
requiring conversion to become one or the other.

Current is the motion of charges. Period. Its units are
specified in Coulombs per Second (the Ampere defined to be a
flow of one Coulomb per second).

Flow of electrons is not like flow of water. Increasing current does
not necessarily increase electron kinetic energy. Perhaps it is like
adding intellegence instead of energy.

Oooh, a personal snipe?

Two ways to increase current (of water or electricity):

1) Increase the volume of particles transported per unit
time by simply moving more of them in parallel. That
is, increase the intensity of the flow.

2) Increase the volume of particles transported per unit
time by increasing the speed of the flow.

In your typical electrical conductor, the speed of the
electrons (the so called drift velocity) is largely
constrained by the mean free path of the electrons
as they bump along through the conduction band. This is
also how resistance arises in normal conductors.

Upping the potential difference on a wire to increase
current flow does not significantly increase the drift
speed, but instead more of the electrons in the wire's
material can be pressed into service in the conduction
band. So it's (mostly) mechanism (1) above that's
responsible for current increase in typical electrical
conductors.

Note that in vacuum tubes, the velocity of electrons
passing from cathode to anode is affected by the
cathode-plate potential, as the electrons are accelerated
in free space (so their terminal velocity is determined
by the potential difference through which they fall).

Playing games with how charges travel in materials
have lead to some important developments in semiconductor
technology. See, for example, the so called ballistic
electron trajectories used in some transistor designs.

[snip]

Quote:

Look up cross section or reaction cross section. It's a
statement about the probability of a given reaction
taking place. Small cross section means low probability.

Ok, why is the cross section for gamma rays bigger than radio waves?

Is it? In what context?

[snip]

Quote:

Maxwell predicted the speed of light from electromagnetic, not
gravitational properties. Why doesn't spacetime apply to magnetism?

It does. The electromagnetic field contains energy, and
thus has an associated mass that affects spacetime.

I thought it was the magnetic field, not the mass (gravity) of the
magnetic field that influences spacetime.

There's energy stored in a magnetic field, just as there
is in an electric field. That energy affects spacetime
in a way that's equivalent to it having mass via m = E/c^2.

In a propagating electromagnetic wave, the electric and
magnetic components of the field oscillate, exchanging
the energy of the field from one form to the other and
back.

[snip]
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:05 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:29:01 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lpdsa2pqrna7i7scehpggfimn2soomf9ht@4ax.com...
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:03:02 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:




What aether? According to the standard model there is
no aether.

OK, I agree, no aether. The energy of spontaneous production of
particle/antiparticle pairs originates elsewhere.

I have an energy balance problem with gravitational energy loss (or
gain) by photons. Where does the energy go and what form does the
lost energy convert to?

If photons cannot have zero energy, and all energy within a black hole
became photons, wouldn't these photons remove (all) energy from the
black hole? Perhaps the energy that photons lose becomes more
photons?

Photons carry energy in the form of momentum. So what's
the problem? If a photon is absorbed by a system, the
momentum is transferred to that system and shows up as
kinetic energy of one form or another (translational,
rotational).

I think photons are pure energy. If a photon could cycle through any
conversion to magnetic, electrostatic or mass energy, without any
external trigger, there would be a stability problem - too much
stability. For example, once light is magnetism, magnetism requires
the proper conditions to become electrostatic energy.
Quote:

Photons do not escape from within a black hole. They do,
however, comprise a portion of the Hawking radiation.


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to think that
gravity (gravitons?) is somehow being turned into
particles of matter and antimatter. This is not so.

I think you claimed that mini black holes exploded. How?

Hawking radiation. Black hole temperature increases with
deceasing size/mass. Tiny ones evaporate so quickly that
it is equivalent to an explosion.

The rate of evaporation is determined by what is called
the Hawking temperature, which is inversely proportional
to the mass of the black hole.

Have a gander at this page for a derivation of the
evaporation time:

http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/essays/black-hole-evaporation.html

Not everyone believes black hole evaporation is caused by Hawking

radiation.

"The prediction that black holes radiate due to quantum effects is
often considered one of the most secure in quantum field theory in
curved space-time. Yet this prediction rests on two dubious
assumptions: that ordinary physics may be applied to vacuum
fluctuations at energy scales increasing exponentially without bound;
and that quantum-gravitational effects may be neglected."

"The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be
taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the
Universe."
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042/
Quote:

Various probability functions and aether are the energy sources I
heard of. Current theory (which I do not agree with) is that particle
separation at the event horizon causes black hole energy loss. For
probability to increase with gravity, the energy associated with the
vacuum fluctuations must also be influenced by gravity - the stability
of the reaction product (particle-antiparticle pair) is not greatly
enhanced by gravity.

Particle/antiparticle pairs come into existence in a
probabilistic fashion at a rate determined by the
stress-energy of the local space. Probability isn't a
source of energy or a mechanism, it's a description of
the rates and energy distributions involved.

You are probably right


Quote:
As a black hole loses mass, the schwarzchild radius
shrinks and the black hole's singularity gets closer
to the "surface", so to speak. Thus the stress energy
(measure of curvature of space) grows more extreme in
the near vicinity of the black hole as the black hole
shrinks.

[snip]


A practical reality is that inductance, magnetism and current require
a closed circuit. A theoretical reality is that they do not require a
closed circuit. Perhaps both are correct. This problem seems similar
to Newtonian physics not necessarily applying to atomic level physics.

I must disagree. A charged body set into motion
mechanically will constitute a current. Just because
it's technologically easier to move current around
in conductors using a potential difference (battery)
to drive it, doesn't mean that it's the definition or
the only way it can be.

The manipulation of statically charged objects is a
classic case in point, all those experiments with
electrophorus's and Leyden jars and such, where
charges are moved from body to body by contact,
a current of charge flowing between without a
battery or closed circuit in sight.

The electrostatic energy within insulators and capacitors differs from

current within conductors. Magnetism ALWAYS accompanies current,
magnetism does not necessarily accompany static electricity. Static
electricity differs from the charge on an electron. Static
electricity ALWAYS has voltage, the charge on an electron does not
necessarily have voltage.
Quote:

Anyways, my vote goes with Maxwell who says that a moving
charge produces a magnetic field.


Movement of an electron through a vacuum does not convert the vacuum
into a conductor. Only current through a conductor produces
magnetism.

Your ideas are getting stranger. Why do you think that
space would have to be a conductor in order for charge
to move through it? Electron beams are fired through
evacuated CRTs all the time, and constitute a perfectly
respectable current.

I think that when the voltage within a CRT accelerates an electron,

the voltage (static electricity) itself converts to electron
acceleration. External current replenishes the static electricity
converted to kinetic energy.

Quote:
Conductors are most certainly *not* required to form
a magnetic field. Any moving charges will do. Again,
see Maxwell.

So you also see the conflict between the two 'realities'.

I see no conflict. Just because using conductors to constrain
the motions of charges is good, simple technology does not
make what happens without their benefit any more "otherworldly".

This conflict (that doesn't exist) is easily resolved but worthy of

publication. What do you think?
Quote:


In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.

Yet Maxwell says this isn't so. Perhaps you are confusing
the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by accelerated
charges (which propagates decoupled from the charge) with the
magnetic field that is associated with a moving charge?

Perhaps Maxwell's electron needed a conductor to produce magnetism.

No. Absolutely not. Look at the equation.

ibid

ibid^2

[snip]


It is tough enough to detect a single electron with a photomultiplier,
even tougher to detect the magnetic field of a group electrons that
are not being accelerated by voltage. I would be surprised if a
measurable magnetic field from a group of drifting electrons outside
an electric field could be measured. Of course I have been surprised
(wrong) before.

It's old hat. Particle beams are commonplace. The problem with
dense currents travelling this way is that mutual repulsion
tends to broaden the beam, but they carry current nonetheless,
and produce the expected magnetic field. Again, see Maxwell.

Of course Maxwell was right, too bad we do not have a practical test
of free electrons vs magnetism.

Electron beam currents inside evacuated chambers can be in
the range of several milliampers to even amperes, and a
sensitive compass needle (or even more sensitive Hall effect
device) brought close will detect the magnetic field of the
electrons travelling through vacuum.

Excellent test of the theory of the existance of magnetism of

electrons moving outside an electrostatic field. Please provide a
reference to the results.
Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Rutherford based nucleus size on electrostatics and mass, as
determined by collision experiments. That does not limit other forms
of energy in a nucleus to a distance within the electrostatic
boundary.

Yes, and so what? Again, what does this have to do with
your allusion to infinities?

For Rutherford's experiment, alpha particle velocity was 2x10**7 m/s

The ratio of mass energy to kinetic energy of an alpha particle is:

(2x10**7)**2
----------------- = 4.4x10**-3
(3x10**Cool**2

If an alpha particle / anti-alpha particle collision occured, at least
1.0044 times more kinetic energy would be expended, then would be
predicted by E = mc**2 without electrostatic energy.

If the detected energy is below mc**2 + the required energy for
electrostatic repulsion, then an alpha particle does not have enough
electrostatic energy for backscatter.

Again, so what?

The alpha particle electrostatic energy is below that required for the

Rutherford gold backscatter experiment.
Quote:
[snip]


This is a bad example. The magnetic field in your cyclotron
is constant, not changing, and the kinetic energy gain is
being provided by an oscillating electric field.

When you move a magnet over a nail, the nail moves and can
be attracted to the magnet with a good deal of acceleration.
Every electron (and proton) in that nail has experienced
a change in kinetic energy as a result.

If I may suggest, you need to look into the effects of
magnetic field divergence. Again, see Maxwell.

Of course acceleration can occur between two magnets. An electron is
different. A magnetic field cannot accelerate an electron.

Pedantic point: An electron moving through a *static*
field will be caused to move in a circular path. Although
the kinetic energy of the electron is not charged, it is
most certainly accelerated since its direction of travel
(velocity vector) is changing.

Take a look at the force equation:

f = q*v x B (x is the cross product).

If B is static (constant) then the force will constant
too, and perpendicular to the instantaneous velocity
vector. This satisfies the conditions for circular
motion. But if B is *not* static, but changes direction,
then the motion will not be circular and any desired
change of velocity (kinetic energy) can be accomplished
through a suitable manipulation of B over time.

The fringe field effect (the magnetic field gradient an electron goes

through as it enters or leaves a cyclotron D), is not unlike the
changing magnetic field you describe. Both the fringe field and the
constant magnetic field do not increase electron kinetic energy.
Quote:

Neither an RF field nor an electrostatic field is magnetic field.
Either can taint the effects of a changing magnetic field on an
electron.

RF field is both electric and magnetic - electromagnetic
to be precise.

Cyclotrons typically employ large static magnetic fields
to provide the circular trajectories and use electric
fields to provide the kinetic energy boost because it's
the technologically simplest way to go.

A linear accelerator is the way to go.


Either moving a conductor through a magnetic field (generater) or
changing magnetic field strength near a conductor (transformer) is
work that is converted to magnetism. The energy of the moving
conductor is not converted to electron kinetic energy.

So, if the changing magnetic field in the primary of
the transformer is causing a current to flow in the
secondary, and this is being accomplished through magnetic
induction, you're claiming that the resulting moving
electrons that comprise said current do not have kinetic
energy?

The electrons have kinetic energy. Magnetism does not increase
electron kinetic energy.

A changing field does. Hence the need to move either the
coil or the magnet in the classic Faraday's law
demonstration.

Classic?

If a constant or a changing magnetic field both increased magnetic
energy and electron kinetic energy, there would be a conservation of
energy problem. The Faraday law demonstration shows that electron
kinetic energy does not increase, but magnetic energy does increase.
Quote:

In a generator, if it's not work being done by moving the
conductor through the magnetic field (or equivalently,
moving the magnetic field through the conductor), then
where is the energy in the resulting current coming from,
and why do we need to pour so much energy into it to get
current out?

Kinetic energy converts to electrical current and magnetism, but
producing current and magnetism does not necessarily increase electron
kinetic energy.

Electrons that weren't in motion are set in motion to
constitute a current. Electrons have mass, therefore
electrons in motion have kinetic energy.

Perhaps conservation of energy is still preserved when net direction

is changed without increasing average velocity of electrons (similar
to circular motion within a cyclotron D).
Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Perhaps magnetism and current are independent forms of energy,
requiring conversion to become one or the other.

Current is the motion of charges. Period. Its units are
specified in Coulombs per Second (the Ampere defined to be a
flow of one Coulomb per second).

Flow of electrons is not like flow of water. Increasing current does
not necessarily increase electron kinetic energy. Perhaps it is like
adding intellegence instead of energy.

Oooh, a personal snipe?

Very funny


Quote:
Two ways to increase current (of water or electricity):

1) Increase the volume of particles transported per unit
time by simply moving more of them in parallel. That
is, increase the intensity of the flow.

2) Increase the volume of particles transported per unit
time by increasing the speed of the flow.

In your typical electrical conductor, the speed of the
electrons (the so called drift velocity) is largely
constrained by the mean free path of the electrons
as they bump along through the conduction band. This is
also how resistance arises in normal conductors.

Upping the potential difference on a wire to increase
current flow does not significantly increase the drift
speed, but instead more of the electrons in the wire's
material can be pressed into service in the conduction
band. So it's (mostly) mechanism (1) above that's
responsible for current increase in typical electrical
conductors.

Note that in vacuum tubes, the velocity of electrons
passing from cathode to anode is affected by the
cathode-plate potential, as the electrons are accelerated
in free space (so their terminal velocity is determined
by the potential difference through which they fall).

As I noted earlier, the energy balance in a CRT is important. Drift

velocity and acceleration are properties one would expect in an
insulator or vacuum. Current through a conductor seems to avoid
problems with electron kinetic energy. For example, current through a
conductor makes magnetism proportional to inductance.

Quote:
Playing games with how charges travel in materials
have lead to some important developments in semiconductor
technology. See, for example, the so called ballistic
electron trajectories used in some transistor designs.

Perhaps those principles could be used in fuel cell design.
[snip]


Look up cross section or reaction cross section. It's a
statement about the probability of a given reaction
taking place. Small cross section means low probability.

Ok, why is the cross section for gamma rays bigger than radio waves?

Is it? In what context?
The gravity that exists perpendicular to a photon's axis of travel.

[snip]


Maxwell predicted the speed of light from electromagnetic, not
gravitational properties. Why doesn't spacetime apply to magnetism?

It does. The electromagnetic field contains energy, and
thus has an associated mass that affects spacetime.

I thought it was the magnetic field, not the mass (gravity) of the
magnetic field that influences spacetime.

There's energy stored in a magnetic field, just as there
is in an electric field. That energy affects spacetime
in a way that's equivalent to it having mass via m = E/c^2.

Yes, magnetism's total energy is EQUIVALENT to an amount of mass.

Magnetism is not temporarily converted to mass and does not
temporarily assume the characteristics of mass with respect to
spacetime.

Quote:
In a propagating electromagnetic wave, the electric and
magnetic components of the field oscillate, exchanging
the energy of the field from one form to the other and
back.

Actually I think I can provide more detail as to nature of photon, but

I've already introduced too many controversial ideas related to
Maxwell's equations.
Quote:
[snip]
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:90v2b2h4q6bg1qk8kuep4hbs1qqu37sohj@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:29:01 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]

Quote:

Photons carry energy in the form of momentum. So what's
the problem? If a photon is absorbed by a system, the
momentum is transferred to that system and shows up as
kinetic energy of one form or another (translational,
rotational).

I think photons are pure energy. If a photon could cycle through any
conversion to magnetic, electrostatic or mass energy, without any
external trigger, there would be a stability problem - too much
stability. For example, once light is magnetism, magnetism requires
the proper conditions to become electrostatic energy.

What then are the properties of this "pure energy"? What are
the particle properties, and what distinguishes them from, say,
photons (mass = 0, spin 1)? How does potential energy fit in
to this view?

On what basis do you say that a photon cycles through
various manifestations as magnetic, electrostatic, or
mass energy? (And what the heck distinguishes these
"energies" if not their respective fields?)

Also, how do you draw the conclusion that there would be
"too much stability"? Please illucidate your theory and
provide the relevant predictive formulae.

Quote:

Photons do not escape from within a black hole. They do,
however, comprise a portion of the Hawking radiation.


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to think that
gravity (gravitons?) is somehow being turned into
particles of matter and antimatter. This is not so.

I think you claimed that mini black holes exploded. How?

Hawking radiation. Black hole temperature increases with
deceasing size/mass. Tiny ones evaporate so quickly that
it is equivalent to an explosion.

The rate of evaporation is determined by what is called
the Hawking temperature, which is inversely proportional
to the mass of the black hole.

Have a gander at this page for a derivation of the
evaporation time:

http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/essays/black-hole-evaporation.html

Not everyone believes black hole evaporation is caused by Hawking
radiation.

"The prediction that black holes radiate due to quantum effects is
often considered one of the most secure in quantum field theory in
curved space-time. Yet this prediction rests on two dubious
assumptions: that ordinary physics may be applied to vacuum
fluctuations at energy scales increasing exponentially without bound;
and that quantum-gravitational effects may be neglected."

"The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be
taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the
Universe."
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042/

Yes, so? Competing theories make for good science. The
theories that make correct predictions prevail while those
that do not are dropped.

I note that that virtually all of the papers that cite the
above paper seem to favor the existence of Hawking radiation.

Consider also the fact that only recently accelerators
have achieved energies and energy densities sufficient
that they should be able to produce microscopic black holes.
We don't see a bunch of stable new black hole particles
hanging around -- the results inevitably are a shower of
well known lesser particles.

Cosmic rays occasionally strike the atmosphere with enough
energy that they should be able to produce microscopic
black holes. If these things didn't immediately radiate
away their mass they would accumulate more and rapidly
grow, feeding on the mass of the Earth. All the planets
and stars would have rapidly become black holes. Why
hasn't this happened?


[snip]

Quote:

I must disagree. A charged body set into motion
mechanically will constitute a current. Just because
it's technologically easier to move current around
in conductors using a potential difference (battery)
to drive it, doesn't mean that it's the definition or
the only way it can be.

The manipulation of statically charged objects is a
classic case in point, all those experiments with
electrophorus's and Leyden jars and such, where
charges are moved from body to body by contact,
a current of charge flowing between without a
battery or closed circuit in sight.

The electrostatic energy within insulators and capacitors differs from
current within conductors.

Obviously, as one comprises a current and the other static
charge distributions. One is energy being carried by
moving charges and the other the static fields held by
charges held in place.

Quote:
Magnetism ALWAYS accompanies current,
magnetism does not necessarily accompany static electricity.

Magnetism never accompanies a static electric charge
(static from the point of view of an observer). If a
static charge is made to move with respect to an observer,
he will see a magnetic field.

Quote:
Static
electricity differs from the charge on an electron. Static
electricity ALWAYS has voltage, the charge on an electron does not
necessarily have voltage.

That's nonsense. A static charge has voltage by dint of
position -- voltage is a measure of the field strength
in the form of potential energy. Any charge Q has a
voltage potential according to position in space given
by V = k*Q/r^2. This is analogous to the gravitational
potential P = G*M/r^2 for a mass M. In both cases the
potential resolves to a net force per unit of charge of
a test body at a position r distance units away from
the field source (Q coulombs of electric charge or
M units of mass "charge").

Quote:

Anyways, my vote goes with Maxwell who says that a moving
charge produces a magnetic field.


Movement of an electron through a vacuum does not convert the vacuum
into a conductor. Only current through a conductor produces
magnetism.

Your ideas are getting stranger. Why do you think that
space would have to be a conductor in order for charge
to move through it? Electron beams are fired through
evacuated CRTs all the time, and constitute a perfectly
respectable current.

I think that when the voltage within a CRT accelerates an electron,
the voltage (static electricity) itself converts to electron
acceleration.

There are just so many problems with that idea. Like
conservation of electric charge. Can you provide the
reaction mechanism and balanced equations that convert
a unit of voltage to a unit of acceleration? Keep in
mind that Voltage is just a description of the strength
of the electric field at a given point in space specified
as newtons per coulomb. Acceleration depends upon the
mass of the body being accelerated and is specified in
meters per second per second.

Quote:
External current replenishes the static electricity
converted to kinetic energy.

Only if the accelerated charge is allowed to impact
on the accelerating anode and neutralize a like
amount of charge there. An electron beam that
does not impact the deflection plates of an
electrostatically steered CRT does not draw current
from the deflection plates.

Quote:

Conductors are most certainly *not* required to form
a magnetic field. Any moving charges will do. Again,
see Maxwell.

So you also see the conflict between the two 'realities'.

I see no conflict. Just because using conductors to constrain
the motions of charges is good, simple technology does not
make what happens without their benefit any more "otherworldly".

This conflict (that doesn't exist) is easily resolved but worthy of
publication. What do you think?

If you think that you've got something, then go for it.

[snip]

Quote:

Electron beam currents inside evacuated chambers can be in
the range of several milliampers to even amperes, and a
sensitive compass needle (or even more sensitive Hall effect
device) brought close will detect the magnetic field of the
electrons travelling through vacuum.

Excellent test of the theory of the existance of magnetism of
electrons moving outside an electrostatic field. Please provide a
reference to the results.

You can do your own research, but here's one I came across
that notes the effect of self-generated magnetic fields
on the collimation of electron beams:

http://ej.iop.org/links/q74/N2LF0uvZjDNndKGJVMsg+w/ppcf6_2_L01.pdf

You do realize, of course, that the reason that moving
electrons are deflected by a magnetic field is that
they are themselves producing a magnetic field due
to their motion, and that this field interacts with an
external field to provide the so called Lorentz force?
Otherwise, what do think causes the deflection of
moving charges in a magnetic field?

Again, see Maxwell's equations. Or do you reject Maxwell's
equations and Relativity?

Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Rutherford based nucleus size on electrostatics and mass, as
determined by collision experiments. That does not limit other forms
of energy in a nucleus to a distance within the electrostatic
boundary.

Yes, and so what? Again, what does this have to do with
your allusion to infinities?

For Rutherford's experiment, alpha particle velocity was 2x10**7 m/s

The ratio of mass energy to kinetic energy of an alpha particle is:

(2x10**7)**2
----------------- = 4.4x10**-3
(3x10**Cool**2

If an alpha particle / anti-alpha particle collision occured, at least
1.0044 times more kinetic energy would be expended, then would be
predicted by E = mc**2 without electrostatic energy.

If the detected energy is below mc**2 + the required energy for
electrostatic repulsion, then an alpha particle does not have enough
electrostatic energy for backscatter.

Again, so what?

The alpha particle electrostatic energy is below that required for the
Rutherford gold backscatter experiment.

Rutherford's experiment confirmed his model of the atom
as comprising a tiny postively charged nucleus surrounded
by a negatively charged region. The size of the nucleus
was estimated from the noted scattering angles.

I still don't see any explanation for your reference
to infinities.



Quote:
The electrons have kinetic energy. Magnetism does not increase
electron kinetic energy.

A changing field does. Hence the need to move either the
coil or the magnet in the classic Faraday's law
demonstration.

Classic?
If a constant or a changing magnetic field both increased magnetic
energy and electron kinetic energy, there would be a conservation of
energy problem. The Faraday law demonstration shows that electron
kinetic energy does not increase, but magnetic energy does increase.

You're thus claiming that the charges are already in
motion and that the current exists *before* the
changing magnetic field is introduced. Yet this is
clearly contrary to the experimental demonstration.

Current is charges in motion. Charges initially at rest
are set into motion via a changing magnetic field. The
charged particles (electrons in the case of the classic
magnet-coil-ammeter demonstration of Faraday's Law)
have mass, and therefore gain kinetic energy when they
are set into motion. I really fail to see how you can
avoid this conclusion. Also, if you do the book keeping,
you'll find no problems with conservation of energy.

Quote:

In a generator, if it's not work being done by moving the
conductor through the magnetic field (or equivalently,
moving the magnetic field through the conductor), then
where is the energy in the resulting current coming from,
and why do we need to pour so much energy into it to get
current out?

Kinetic energy converts to electrical current and magnetism, but
producing current and magnetism does not necessarily increase electron
kinetic energy.

Electrons that weren't in motion are set in motion to
constitute a current. Electrons have mass, therefore
electrons in motion have kinetic energy.

Perhaps conservation of energy is still preserved when net direction
is changed without increasing average velocity of electrons (similar
to circular motion within a cyclotron D).

Yes. If the magnetic field is static then no work is
done on the charges, their speed being unchanged.

If the field is changing, then energy is being moved
around in order to change it, and this can cause
the speed of the electrons to change, not just the
direction. Here are some nifty pictures of electron
beams being moved about by different field conditions:

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/plasma-exp/beam/

Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Perhaps magnetism and current are independent forms of energy,
requiring conversion to become one or the other.

Current is the motion of charges. Period. Its units are
specified in Coulombs per Second (the Ampere defined to be a
flow of one Coulomb per second).

Flow of electrons is not like flow of water. Increasing current does
not necessarily increase electron kinetic energy. Perhaps it is like
adding intellegence instead of energy.

Oooh, a personal snipe?

Very funny

Two ways to increase current (of water or electricity):

1) Increase the volume of particles transported per unit
time by simply moving more of them in parallel. That
is, increase the intensity of the flow.

2) Increase the volume of particles transported per unit
time by increasing the speed of the flow.

In your typical electrical conductor, the speed of the
electrons (the so called drift velocity) is largely
constrained by the mean free path of the electrons
as they bump along through the conduction band. This is
also how resistance arises in normal conductors.

Upping the potential difference on a wire to increase
current flow does not significantly increase the drift
speed, but instead more of the electrons in the wire's
material can be pressed into service in the conduction
band. So it's (mostly) mechanism (1) above that's
responsible for current increase in typical electrical
conductors.

Note that in vacuum tubes, the velocity of electrons
passing from cathode to anode is affected by the
cathode-plate potential, as the electrons are accelerated
in free space (so their terminal velocity is determined
by the potential difference through which they fall).

As I noted earlier, the energy balance in a CRT is important. Drift
velocity and acceleration are properties one would expect in an
insulator or vacuum. Current through a conductor seems to avoid
problems with electron kinetic energy. For example, current through a
conductor makes magnetism proportional to inductance.

Drift speed in a conductor is tempered by resistance.
The most energetically favorable way to support increased
current in a conductor is to employ more charges rather
than speedier ones.

I don't see what point you are trying to make with regard to
magnetism being proportional to inductance. The magnetic
field is proportional to the current density. Inductance
(and self-inductance in particular) is a measure of the
voltage produced (sometimes called back-EMF) by a given
current in a given geometry of conductor, or alternatively,
the voltage induced by a change in magnetic flux density
in the magnetic field in which the conductor is immersed.

V = L*dI/dT

It so happens that the inductance is dependent upon the
physical geometry of the conductor (which makes sense since
the magnetic field is spacially extended). So it may be
calculated from the geometry. In the particular case of
a uniform solenoid (coil) it is proportional to the
square of number of turns (N), the area (A) encompassed
by each turn, and inversely proportional to the length
of the coil. That is, L = mu*N^2*A/l.

In point of fact, Inductance plays a similar role to
that of Resistance (in Ohms) in relating the voltage and
current in a given circuit element. In the case of
Resistance it is not time dependent, that is, the
voltage is proportional to the intantaneous current:
V = R*I. For capacitance we have C = Q/V (so that
V = (1/C)*Integral[i*dt] ) and for the inductor
we have L = PHI/I where PHI is the magnetic flux of
the current (so that v = -L*dI/dt).

[snip]

Quote:

There's energy stored in a magnetic field, just as there
is in an electric field. That energy affects spacetime
in a way that's equivalent to it having mass via m = E/c^2.

Yes, magnetism's total energy is EQUIVALENT to an amount of mass.
Magnetism is not temporarily converted to mass and does not
temporarily assume the characteristics of mass with respect to
spacetime.

I never said it did. It has an *equivalent* mass, not
a rest mass. The point is, though, that this equivalent
mass behaves just like a real mass in that it has a
gravitational field and can attract other mass in just
the same way as a "real" mass.

Quote:

In a propagating electromagnetic wave, the electric and
magnetic components of the field oscillate, exchanging
the energy of the field from one form to the other and
back.

Actually I think I can provide more detail as to nature of photon, but
I've already introduced too many controversial ideas related to
Maxwell's equations.

Indeed. Do you accept the predictions of Maxwell's equations
or not? If you do then your ideas will need agree with them.
If not, you'll have to propose a specific test (experiment)
that will distinguish between your theory and Maxwell's.
The latter should prove to be rather difficult, given the
many years of experimental confirmation that Maxwell
enjoys.
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:37:24 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:90v2b2h4q6bg1qk8kuep4hbs1qqu37sohj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:29:01 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]


Photons carry energy in the form of momentum. So what's
the problem? If a photon is absorbed by a system, the
momentum is transferred to that system and shows up as
kinetic energy of one form or another (translational,
rotational).

I think photons are pure energy. If a photon could cycle through any
conversion to magnetic, electrostatic or mass energy, without any
external trigger, there would be a stability problem - too much
stability. For example, once light is magnetism, magnetism requires
the proper conditions to become electrostatic energy.

What then are the properties of this "pure energy"? What are
the particle properties, and what distinguishes them from, say,
photons (mass = 0, spin 1)? How does potential energy fit in
to this view?


Simple, When an electron emits a photon through synchrotron radiation,
the electron does not lose mass nor gravity. Only a conversion of
electron kinetic energy to photon occurs.

When a photon strikes an electron, causing the electron to change
momentum, it just means that the converse of synchrotron radiation
occurred. A direct conversion of a photon's energy to electron
kinetic energy. If a photon had mass, collision with an electron
would not change the photon's mass.

Quote:
On what basis do you say that a photon cycles through
various manifestations as magnetic, electrostatic, or
mass energy? (And what the heck distinguishes these
"energies" if not their respective fields?)

I was claiming that photons NEVER have magnetism. Production of

magnetism requires inductance.

Quote:
Also, how do you draw the conclusion that there would be
"too much stability"? Please illucidate your theory and
provide the relevant predictive formulae.

Time within a particle traveling the speed of light has stopped.

While traveling, there is no time for conversion to other forms of
energy.
Quote:

Photons do not escape from within a black hole. They do,
however, comprise a portion of the Hawking radiation.


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to think that
gravity (gravitons?) is somehow being turned into
particles of matter and antimatter. This is not so.

I think you claimed that mini black holes exploded. How?

Hawking radiation. Black hole temperature increases with
deceasing size/mass. Tiny ones evaporate so quickly that
it is equivalent to an explosion.

The rate of evaporation is determined by what is called
the Hawking temperature, which is inversely proportional
to the mass of the black hole.

Have a gander at this page for a derivation of the
evaporation time:

http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/essays/black-hole-evaporation.html

Not everyone believes black hole evaporation is caused by Hawking
radiation.

"The prediction that black holes radiate due to quantum effects is
often considered one of the most secure in quantum field theory in
curved space-time. Yet this prediction rests on two dubious
assumptions: that ordinary physics may be applied to vacuum
fluctuations at energy scales increasing exponentially without bound;
and that quantum-gravitational effects may be neglected."

"The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be
taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the
Universe."
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042/

Yes, so? Competing theories make for good science. The
theories that make correct predictions prevail while those
that do not are dropped.

I note that that virtually all of the papers that cite the
above paper seem to favor the existence of Hawking radiation.

Consider also the fact that only recently accelerators
have achieved energies and energy densities sufficient
that they should be able to produce microscopic black holes.
We don't see a bunch of stable new black hole particles
hanging around -- the results inevitably are a shower of
well known lesser particles.

Cosmic rays occasionally strike the atmosphere with enough
energy that they should be able to produce microscopic
black holes. If these things didn't immediately radiate
away their mass they would accumulate more and rapidly
grow, feeding on the mass of the Earth. All the planets
and stars would have rapidly become black holes. Why
hasn't this happened?

Particle collisions creating black holes? Shouldn't an

electron-positron combine to form a black hole instead of
annihilation?
Quote:

[snip]


I must disagree. A charged body set into motion
mechanically will constitute a current. Just because
it's technologically easier to move current around
in conductors using a potential difference (battery)
to drive it, doesn't mean that it's the definition or
the only way it can be.

The manipulation of statically charged objects is a
classic case in point, all those experiments with
electrophorus's and Leyden jars and such, where
charges are moved from body to body by contact,
a current of charge flowing between without a
battery or closed circuit in sight.

The electrostatic energy within insulators and capacitors differs from
current within conductors.

Obviously, as one comprises a current and the other static
charge distributions. One is energy being carried by
moving charges and the other the static fields held by
charges held in place.

Within this thread, I've been calling the electric field energy

responsible for voltage "static electricity". I think the electric
field energy in a capacitor is the same energy as the static
electricity that makes your hair stick out. From now on, I'll avoid
the ambiguous term "static electricity".

I do not think electrical current is not energy carried by moving
charges! Free electrons do not transport electric field energy
because free electrons cannot transport electric field energy without
converting the voltage to electron acceleration, thus increasing
electron kinetic energy. Electron kinetic energy is not current,
except by a definition that I disagree with.

In a vacuum tube diode, voltage accelerates the electrons released by
thermionic emission. As voltage accelerates a free electron, electric
field energy becomes depleted due to conservation of energy. The
direction of the accelerated electron is opposite of the direction of
current (energy) must flow to replace lost static electricity.

A current of electrons cannot convert to voltage within a vacuum tube
diode, because electrons cannot simultaneously lose kinetic energy to
create voltage and gain kinetic energy by voltage acceleration caused
by the voltage.


Consider also that a spinning metal disk within a magnetic field
acquires magnetism. Changing the magnetic field within a
(super)conductor produces magnetism (LENZ'S LAW). If electron
velocity completely (and permanently) converts to magnetism, the
electron stops due to conservation of energy.

The fact that any electron kinetic energy that becomes magnetism must
be subtracted from the electron's kinetic energy, conflicts with many
established theories (for example, Maxwell's equations).

Quote:
Magnetism ALWAYS accompanies current,
magnetism does not necessarily accompany static electricity.

Magnetism never accompanies a static electric charge
(static from the point of view of an observer). If a
static charge is made to move with respect to an observer,
he will see a magnetic field.

Voltage is a FIELD that accelerates electrons across a voltage

gradient. Voltage, magnetism and electric fields are not a collection
of electrons or holes. An electrostatic field around an electron does
not have the same force distance pattern that an voltage has.

Quote:
Static
electricity differs from the charge on an electron. Static
electricity ALWAYS has voltage, the charge on an electron does not
necessarily have voltage.

That's nonsense. A static charge has voltage by dint of
position -- voltage is a measure of the field strength
in the form of potential energy. Any charge Q has a
voltage potential according to position in space given
by V = k*Q/r^2. This is analogous to the gravitational
potential P = G*M/r^2 for a mass M. In both cases the
potential resolves to a net force per unit of charge of
a test body at a position r distance units away from
the field source (Q coulombs of electric charge or
M units of mass "charge").

Ok, instead of static electricity, I should have said ELECTRIC FIELD

ENERGY. Suppose a current of ONE electron enters a (small) vacuum
tube diode and the electron causes a static electric field (voltage)
between cathode and plate. A free electron generated by thermionic
emission at the cathode would be accelerated toward the plate by
voltage F = q*voltage.

I have difficulty reconciling how the voltage gradient between plate
and cathode could be caused by a single electron's V = k*Q/r^2
relation, except that the k*Q/r^2 relation is an amount of energy that
could EQUAL the amount of energy you receive when you get shocked by
static electricity.


Perhaps current itself does not exist. Perhaps current is magnetism
and the magnetism is not evenly stored within a wire - more magnetism
is stored in a loop in the wire than in the straight part of a wire.
The electric field energy within a capacitor's dielectric material
converts to magnetism. The low amount of initial (apparent) current
to an inductor is due to the distribution of magnetic energy and does
not indicate that a low amount of energy is entering the inductor. A
larger initial amount of electric field energy converts to magnetic
energy at the coil than at the straight part of the wire.


Perhaps also there is more than one type of electric field energy.
Current within a lead acid cell's electrolyte differs from current
through metals and resistors. The conductive path within H2SO4 does
not short the voltage between lead acid cell terminals, as would be
expected from metallic or resistive conductors. Joining two galvanic
half cells with a conductor instead of a salt bridge, stops production
of current.

The SPECIAL electric field energy within the lead acid cell
electrolyte H2SO4 is generated by chemical reactions between H2SO4 and
the terminals. H2SO4 is otherwise an insulator, as evidenced by use
of H2SO4 as dielectric material in capacitors. Just as regular
electric field energy distributes itself within an insulator, SPECIAL
electric field energy distributes itself throughout the electrolyte.

The SPECIAL electric field energy requires a second port to an
external conductor (similar to a capacitor needing two plates) to
complete a magnetic circuit. Consider that in a charging lead acid
cell, all reactants are in the electrolyte. If the reactions did not
depend on the interface between the electrolyte and the terminals, the
reaction products Pb(s) and PbO2 would appear throughout the
electrolyte. The oxidation / reduction reactions generating special
static electricity, must be located at the electrolyte / terminal
interfaces for both charging and discharging.

Anode PbSO4 + 2H2O ==> PbO2 + H2SO4 + 2H+1 + 2e (1.68 volts)

Cathode PbSO4 + 2H+1 + 2e ==> Pb + H2SO4 (.356 volts)

Sorry for presenting ideas in a sloppy fashion. It is tough to find
(half baked) discrepencies among theories. Requesting clarification
as to the validity of the discrepencies without omitting relavant data
or other forms of sloppiness is double tough.
<snip>
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:odkib2ha8ebfitfteaacv7ubikqjspqeu2@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:37:24 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:90v2b2h4q6bg1qk8kuep4hbs1qqu37sohj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:29:01 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]


Photons carry energy in the form of momentum. So what's
the problem? If a photon is absorbed by a system, the
momentum is transferred to that system and shows up as
kinetic energy of one form or another (translational,
rotational).

I think photons are pure energy. If a photon could cycle through any
conversion to magnetic, electrostatic or mass energy, without any
external trigger, there would be a stability problem - too much
stability. For example, once light is magnetism, magnetism requires
the proper conditions to become electrostatic energy.

What then are the properties of this "pure energy"? What are
the particle properties, and what distinguishes them from, say,
photons (mass = 0, spin 1)? How does potential energy fit in
to this view?


Simple, When an electron emits a photon through synchrotron radiation,
the electron does not lose mass nor gravity. Only a conversion of
electron kinetic energy to photon occurs.

This does not fully address the question, "What are the properties of
this 'pure energy'". It does not, for example, in any way
distinguish between your pure energy concept and the standard
model description of a photon.

Quote:

When a photon strikes an electron, causing the electron to change
momentum, it just means that the converse of synchrotron radiation
occurred. A direct conversion of a photon's energy to electron
kinetic energy. If a photon had mass, collision with an electron
would not change the photon's mass.

If a photon had mass (rest mass, which it does not) and if
the photon were to be absorbed by a particle such as an
electron and if said particle did not change gain that
mass, then where would the mass go? What particle
would carry it off? As far as we know, for example, there
are no chargless electrons hanging about.

Quote:

On what basis do you say that a photon cycles through
various manifestations as magnetic, electrostatic, or
mass energy? (And what the heck distinguishes these
"energies" if not their respective fields?)

I was claiming that photons NEVER have magnetism. Production of
magnetism requires inductance.

Well, that's not an idea that is supported empirically.
No inductance is needed by a moving charge to produce
an electromagnetic field. See Maxwell's Laws.

Quote:

Also, how do you draw the conclusion that there would be
"too much stability"? Please illucidate your theory and
provide the relevant predictive formulae.

Time within a particle traveling the speed of light has stopped.
While traveling, there is no time for conversion to other forms of
energy.

No material particle travels at the speed of light, so
time does not, in fact, stop for any material particle.
Further, from the viewpoint of the particle moving
*close* to the speed of light, time is running normally.
See, for example, the experiments and observations
regarding the half-life of muons.

Also, velocity is a purely relative measure. There are
always objects moving at very high velocities with respect
to us, so that from their point of view, it is we who are
travelling at very high velocities. Yet we do not appear
to have any problem concerning having time for things to
take place.

The laws of physics are taken to be symmetrical and
uniform, and identical in all inertial frames of
reference.


[snip]

Quote:

Cosmic rays occasionally strike the atmosphere with enough
energy that they should be able to produce microscopic
black holes. If these things didn't immediately radiate
away their mass they would accumulate more and rapidly
grow, feeding on the mass of the Earth. All the planets
and stars would have rapidly become black holes. Why
hasn't this happened?

Particle collisions creating black holes? Shouldn't an
electron-positron combine to form a black hole instead of
annihilation?

It is not enrtirely inconceivable that a microscopic
black hole is a brief intermediate stage of the
anihilation process. After all, electrons and their
poitron counterparts, are to the best of our knowledge
point particles. When they come together to anihilate,
the mass-energy density would be enormous. The resulting
black hole would evaporate essentially immediately,
producing the observed photon emissions.

[snip]

Quote:

Within this thread, I've been calling the electric field energy
responsible for voltage "static electricity". I think the electric
field energy in a capacitor is the same energy as the static
electricity that makes your hair stick out. From now on, I'll avoid
the ambiguous term "static electricity".

I do not think electrical current is not energy carried by moving
charges! Free electrons do not transport electric field energy
because free electrons cannot transport electric field energy without
converting the voltage to electron acceleration, thus increasing
electron kinetic energy. Electron kinetic energy is not current,
except by a definition that I disagree with.

What definition would that be? Current is defined as the
motion of charges. The electron happens to carry a charge
and happen to be the most familiar example of something that
is a charge carfrier. But that is entirely incidental;
anything that happens to have a charge can be used as the
carrier (which is why we refer to "charge carriers" rather
than just electrons in general.

Quote:

In a vacuum tube diode, voltage accelerates the electrons released by
thermionic emission. As voltage accelerates a free electron, electric
field energy becomes depleted due to conservation of energy. The
direction of the accelerated electron is opposite of the direction of
current (energy) must flow to replace lost static electricity.

Conservation of charge argues otherwise. If the accelerated
particles do not reach the anode (for example, if the anode
in fact has an aperture that allows the elctrons to pass
through without impact) then there is no anode current.

Similarly, a permanent magnet can be used to deflect
electrons without ever using up its magnetic potential.

Quote:

A current of electrons cannot convert to voltage within a vacuum tube
diode, because electrons cannot simultaneously lose kinetic energy to
create voltage and gain kinetic energy by voltage acceleration caused
by the voltage.

I fail to extract anything frm the above. Electrons do not "convert
to voltage". Voltage is simply a measure of the strength of
the field potential due to the relative location of electric
charges. You seem to want to attribute properties to things
like current and voltage that are not consistent with their
defintions.

Quote:


Consider also that a spinning metal disk within a magnetic field
acquires magnetism.

It also acquires an electric potential and can drive a
hefty current (Faraday Disk Generator). The phenomenon of eddy
currents is nothing remarkable.

Quote:
Changing the magnetic field within a
(super)conductor produces magnetism (LENZ'S LAW). If electron
velocity completely (and permanently) converts to magnetism, the
electron stops due to conservation of energy.

Now your attributing physical properties to velocity.
How can velocity, a measure that's entirely relative
to the given observor, "convert" to something physical?

Quote:

The fact that any electron kinetic energy that becomes magnetism must
be subtracted from the electron's kinetic energy, conflicts with many
established theories (for example, Maxwell's equations).

Kinetic energy is not magnetic. I really fail to see where
you're getting these odd ideas. Further, you are being
disengenuous when you say that a moving charge's field
energy would conflict with Maxwell, for it is Maxwell that
predicts the result! Further, there is no conflict with
conservation as the energy that goes into the magnetic
field is merely shifted from the electric field. As I
said previously, the magnetic field observed around moving
charges is simply a Lorentz-perspective view of the
electric field of the charge.

Quote:

Magnetism ALWAYS accompanies current,
magnetism does not necessarily accompany static electricity.

In fact, it should *not* accompany purely static electricity.
Magnetic fields are due to moving charges. Even permanent
magnet magnetic domains can be attributed to moving charges
in the final analysis.

Quote:

Magnetism never accompanies a static electric charge
(static from the point of view of an observer). If a
static charge is made to move with respect to an observer,
he will see a magnetic field.

Voltage is a FIELD that accelerates electrons across a voltage
gradient. Voltage, magnetism and electric fields are not a collection
of electrons or holes. An electrostatic field around an electron does
not have the same force distance pattern that an voltage has.

Voltage is the *measure* of the potential of an electric field.
Voltage is not the field. Your terminology is becoming
increasingly inappropriate, and your statements are making
less snese than they might. For example, above you seem to
be attributing the property of field generation to voltage,
which is inappropriate. It is like attributing a gravitational
field to the location of a rock on a hillside. The rock has
a gravitational potential merely by dint of its *location*
in the existing gravitational field. Voltage bears a similar
relation to the electric field.

Quote:

Static
electricity differs from the charge on an electron. Static
electricity ALWAYS has voltage, the charge on an electron does not
necessarily have voltage.

That's nonsense. A static charge has voltage by dint of
position -- voltage is a measure of the field strength
in the form of potential energy. Any charge Q has a
voltage potential according to position in space given
by V = k*Q/r^2. This is analogous to the gravitational
potential P = G*M/r^2 for a mass M. In both cases the
potential resolves to a net force per unit of charge of
a test body at a position r distance units away from
the field source (Q coulombs of electric charge or
M units of mass "charge").

Ok, instead of static electricity, I should have said ELECTRIC FIELD
ENERGY. Suppose a current of ONE electron enters a (small) vacuum
tube diode and the electron causes a static electric field (voltage)
between cathode and plate. A free electron generated by thermionic
emission at the cathode would be accelerated toward the plate by
voltage F = q*voltage.

I have difficulty reconciling how the voltage gradient between plate
and cathode could be caused by a single electron's V = k*Q/r^2
relation, except that the k*Q/r^2 relation is an amount of energy that
could EQUAL the amount of energy you receive when you get shocked by
static electricity.

I am increasingly impressed by your nonsequiturs.

You've postulated an anode to cathode static potential
created by the excess of a single electron on the
cathode of a diode. You then declare disbelief that
the resulting voltage could be due to the charge on that
electron that you proposed, and then leap to an
improbable comparison of this meager charge to that
involved in commonplace static electric shocks. Really,
I don't see what this rambling accomplishes.

In order to estimate the electric field potential
due to a single electron excess on the cathode of
the diode, simply employ the formulae for the voltage
of a parallel plate capacitor.

C = eps0*Epsr*A/d ;capacitance of parallel plate capacitor

V = Q/C ;voltage on capacitor given charge stored

In the above, simply make Q equal to the charge on the
single electron. eps0 is the permittivity of free space,
and epsr the dialectric constant. Since the diode contains
a vacuum, epsr = 1 by definition. A and d are the plate
area and separation respectively.

Quote:


Perhaps current itself does not exist. Perhaps current is magnetism
and the magnetism is not evenly stored within a wire - more magnetism
is stored in a loop in the wire than in the straight part of a wire.
The electric field energy within a capacitor's dielectric material
converts to magnetism. The low amount of initial (apparent) current
to an inductor is due to the distribution of magnetic energy and does
not indicate that a low amount of energy is entering the inductor. A
larger initial amount of electric field energy converts to magnetic
energy at the coil than at the straight part of the wire.

I'm afraid that, in my opinion, you're heading off deep
into fantasy land. We *define* a current to be the
movement of electric charges. We empirically note that
moving charges produce magnetic fields. We empirically
note that accelerated charged emit electromagnet fields
that are decoupled from the charges and carry off energy.
Faraday, Hertz, Lenz, and of course, Maxwell ensue.
Quote:


Perhaps also there is more than one type of electric field energy.
Current within a lead acid cell's electrolyte differs from current
through metals and resistors. The conductive path within H2SO4 does
not short the voltage between lead acid cell terminals, as would be
expected from metallic or resistive conductors. Joining two galvanic
half cells with a conductor instead of a salt bridge, stops production
of current.

Metals have resistance too. It is merely a matter of
degree. Your argument is specious.

Quote:

The SPECIAL electric field energy within the lead acid cell
electrolyte H2SO4 is generated by chemical reactions between H2SO4 and
the terminals. H2SO4 is otherwise an insulator, as evidenced by use
of H2SO4 as dielectric material in capacitors. Just as regular
electric field energy distributes itself within an insulator, SPECIAL
electric field energy distributes itself throughout the electrolyte.

The SPECIAL electric field energy requires a second port to an
external conductor (similar to a capacitor needing two plates) to
complete a magnetic circuit. Consider that in a charging lead acid
cell, all reactants are in the electrolyte. If the reactions did not
depend on the interface between the electrolyte and the terminals, the
reaction products Pb(s) and PbO2 would appear throughout the
electrolyte. The oxidation / reduction reactions generating special
static electricity, must be located at the electrolyte / terminal
interfaces for both charging and discharging.

Anode PbSO4 + 2H2O ==> PbO2 + H2SO4 + 2H+1 + 2e (1.68 volts)

Cathode PbSO4 + 2H+1 + 2e ==> Pb + H2SO4 (.356 volts)

Sorry for presenting ideas in a sloppy fashion. It is tough to find
(half baked) discrepencies among theories. Requesting clarification
as to the validity of the discrepencies without omitting relavant data
or other forms of sloppiness is double tough.
snip

I can see no justification for invoking a new type of
electric field (and the accompanying charge carriers and
particle family implications), when existing theory, if
properly understood and applied, accounts most satisfactorily
for all so far observed phenomena.
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:09:23 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:odkib2ha8ebfitfteaacv7ubikqjspqeu2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:37:24 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:90v2b2h4q6bg1qk8kuep4hbs1qqu37sohj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:29:01 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]


Photons carry energy in the form of momentum. So what's
the problem? If a photon is absorbed by a system, the
momentum is transferred to that system and shows up as
kinetic energy of one form or another (translational,
rotational).

I think photons are pure energy. If a photon could cycle through any
conversion to magnetic, electrostatic or mass energy, without any
external trigger, there would be a stability problem - too much
stability. For example, once light is magnetism, magnetism requires
the proper conditions to become electrostatic energy.

What then are the properties of this "pure energy"? What are
the particle properties, and what distinguishes them from, say,
photons (mass = 0, spin 1)? How does potential energy fit in
to this view?


Simple, When an electron emits a photon through synchrotron radiation,
the electron does not lose mass nor gravity. Only a conversion of
electron kinetic energy to photon occurs.

This does not fully address the question, "What are the properties of
this 'pure energy'". It does not, for example, in any way
distinguish between your pure energy concept and the standard
model description of a photon.

QED indicates photons have spin. Photon emission from synchrotron

radiation has no QUANTUM emission requirement (all frequencies are
permitted) just as magnetism is non-quantized energy. I question the
assignment of a quantized feature to a non-quantized entity.

Quote:

When a photon strikes an electron, causing the electron to change
momentum, it just means that the converse of synchrotron radiation
occurred. A direct conversion of a photon's energy to electron
kinetic energy. If a photon had mass, collision with an electron
would not change the photon's mass.

If a photon had mass (rest mass, which it does not) and if
the photon were to be absorbed by a particle such as an
electron and if said particle did not change gain that
mass, then where would the mass go? What particle
would carry it off? As far as we know, for example, there
are no chargless electrons hanging about.

I was wrong to even try to predict the properties of a photon with

mass. I have a tough enough time trying to explain how photons might
not have mass.
Quote:

On what basis do you say that a photon cycles through
various manifestations as magnetic, electrostatic, or
mass energy? (And what the heck distinguishes these
"energies" if not their respective fields?)

I was claiming that photons NEVER have magnetism. Production of
magnetism requires inductance.

Well, that's not an idea that is supported empirically.
No inductance is needed by a moving charge to produce
an electromagnetic field. See Maxwell's Laws.

Why not do some problem solving instead of assuming Maxwell was right.

Could it be that Maxwell's equations have a units problem? Otherwise,
Maxwell's equations are proof that magnetism that does not vary with
inductance.
Quote:

Also, how do you draw the conclusion that there would be
"too much stability"? Please illucidate your theory and
provide the relevant predictive formulae.

Time within a particle traveling the speed of light has stopped.
While traveling, there is no time for conversion to other forms of
energy.

No material particle travels at the speed of light, so
time does not, in fact, stop for any material particle.
Further, from the viewpoint of the particle moving
*close* to the speed of light, time is running normally.
See, for example, the experiments and observations
regarding the half-life of muons.

Also, velocity is a purely relative measure. There are
always objects moving at very high velocities with respect
to us, so that from their point of view, it is we who are
travelling at very high velocities. Yet we do not appear
to have any problem concerning having time for things to
take place.

The laws of physics are taken to be symmetrical and
uniform, and identical in all inertial frames of
reference.

So time on a photon is undefined because a photon is not material?

[snip]


Cosmic rays occasionally strike the atmosphere with enough
energy that they should be able to produce microscopic
black holes. If these things didn't immediately radiate
away their mass they would accumulate more and rapidly
grow, feeding on the mass of the Earth. All the planets
and stars would have rapidly become black holes. Why
hasn't this happened?

Particle collisions creating black holes? Shouldn't an
electron-positron combine to form a black hole instead of
annihilation?

It is not enrtirely inconceivable that a microscopic
black hole is a brief intermediate stage of the
anihilation process. After all, electrons and their
poitron counterparts, are to the best of our knowledge
point particles. When they come together to anihilate,
the mass-energy density would be enormous. The resulting
black hole would evaporate essentially immediately,
producing the observed photon emissions.

Shouldn't a range of emission frequencies from a black hole increase

as the event horizon approaches the inner mass?
Quote:
[snip]


Within this thread, I've been calling the electric field energy
responsible for voltage "static electricity". I think the electric
field energy in a capacitor is the same energy as the static
electricity that makes your hair stick out. From now on, I'll avoid
the ambiguous term "static electricity".

I do not think electrical current is not energy carried by moving
charges! Free electrons do not transport electric field energy
because free electrons cannot transport electric field energy without
converting the voltage to electron acceleration, thus increasing
electron kinetic energy. Electron kinetic energy is not current,
except by a definition that I disagree with.

What definition would that be? Current is defined as the
motion of charges. The electron happens to carry a charge
and happen to be the most familiar example of something that
is a charge carfrier. But that is entirely incidental;
anything that happens to have a charge can be used as the
carrier (which is why we refer to "charge carriers" rather
than just electrons in general.

I think current (which might exist only as magnetism) can move energy

without moving a charge. A definition of electrical current as a
movement of electrons fails to account for the role of a closed
circuit.

Quote:

In a vacuum tube diode, voltage accelerates the electrons released by
thermionic emission. As voltage accelerates a free electron, electric
field energy becomes depleted due to conservation of energy. The
direction of the accelerated electron is opposite of the direction of
current (energy) must flow to replace lost static electricity.

Conservation of charge argues otherwise. If the accelerated
particles do not reach the anode (for example, if the anode
in fact has an aperture that allows the elctrons to pass
through without impact) then there is no anode current.

If the electric field of a vacuum tube diode causes low energy

electrons from the cathode to become high energy electrons at the
anode, where are the electrons that replenish the electric field?

Quote:
Similarly, a permanent magnet can be used to deflect
electrons without ever using up its magnetic potential.

Why did you pick this example? I disagree with it, changing linear

electron motion to circular motion requires energy. When motion of a
permanent magnet causes a MAGNETIC field, then the permanent magnet
does not lose energy.
Quote:

A current of electrons cannot convert to voltage within a vacuum tube
diode, because electrons cannot simultaneously lose kinetic energy to
create voltage and gain kinetic energy by voltage acceleration caused
by the voltage.

I fail to extract anything frm the above. Electrons do not "convert
to voltage". Voltage is simply a measure of the strength of
the field potential due to the relative location of electric
charges. You seem to want to attribute properties to things
like current and voltage that are not consistent with their
defintions.

Ok, I should have said ‘increase voltage, instead of ‘convert to

voltage' or ‘create voltage'. How can an electron ADD electric field
energy to a vacuum when electrons CONVERT electric field energy to
kinetic energy?
Quote:

Consider also that a spinning metal disk within a magnetic field
acquires magnetism.

It also acquires an electric potential and can drive a
hefty current (Faraday Disk Generator). The phenomenon of eddy
currents is nothing remarkable.

Changing the magnetic field within a
(super)conductor produces magnetism (LENZ'S LAW). If electron
velocity completely (and permanently) converts to magnetism, the
electron stops due to conservation of energy.

Now your attributing physical properties to velocity.
How can velocity, a measure that's entirely relative
to the given observor, "convert" to something physical?

When a ‘new' magnetic field within the disk opposes the applied

magnetic field, thus the disk slows. Magnetic energy does work by
changing the kinetic energy to the disk by slowing the disk. Adding
rotational energy to spin the disk will balance the magnetic energy
opposing the motion (an electric generator).

If electrons in the disk acquire magnetic energy strong enough to
compensate for disk kinetic energy loss, what gives the electrons
energy to form a magnetic field?
Quote:

The fact that any electron kinetic energy that becomes magnetism must
be subtracted from the electron's kinetic energy, conflicts with many
established theories (for example, Maxwell's equations).

Kinetic energy is not magnetic. I really fail to see where
you're getting these odd ideas. Further, you are being
disengenuous when you say that a moving charge's field
energy would conflict with Maxwell, for it is Maxwell that
predicts the result!

Maxwell was wrong! A magnetic field stores electromagnetic energy
around a conductor, not an electron. Magnetic energy converts to an
electric field energy when its conductive path is broken. Electric
field energy is not created when the path of an electron is broken.

Quote:
Further, there is no conflict with
conservation as the energy that goes into the magnetic
field is merely shifted from the electric field. As I
said previously, the magnetic field observed around moving
charges is simply a Lorentz-perspective view of the
electric field of the charge.

I agree that electric field energy converts to magnetic energy when a

conductor shorts the electric field. I do not agree that an electric
field requires electrons - a vacuum can contain an electric field
without containing electrons.

I also do not agree that "the magnetic field observed around moving
charges is simply a Lorentz-perspective view of the electric field of
the charge". A charge has an electrostatic field, not an electric
field. Electrons traveling at relativistic speeds do not necessarily
produce magnetism because increasing the velocity of an electron only
increases kinetic energy, not kinetic energy + magnetic energy.
Quote:

Magnetism ALWAYS accompanies current,
magnetism does not necessarily accompany static electricity.

In fact, it should *not* accompany purely static electricity.

The middle capacitor of three capacitors connected in series become
charged upon application of voltage to the external ends of the outer
capacitors. An electric field, not electrons enter the center
capacitor.

Quote:
Magnetic fields are due to moving charges. Even permanent
magnet magnetic domains can be attributed to moving charges
in the final analysis.

Perhaps permanent magnets contain superconductors.

Magnetism never accompanies a static electric charge
(static from the point of view of an observer). If a
static charge is made to move with respect to an observer,
he will see a magnetic field.

Voltage is a FIELD that accelerates electrons across a voltage
gradient. Voltage, magnetism and electric fields are not a collection
of electrons or holes. An electrostatic field around an electron does
not have the same force distance pattern that an voltage has.

Voltage is the *measure* of the potential of an electric field.
Voltage is not the field. Your terminology is becoming
increasingly inappropriate, and your statements are making
less snese than they might. For example, above you seem to
be attributing the property of field generation to voltage,
which is inappropriate. It is like attributing a gravitational
field to the location of a rock on a hillside. The rock has
a gravitational potential merely by dint of its *location*
in the existing gravitational field. Voltage bears a similar
relation to the electric field.

Darn, I'm sloppy. I'll proofread before posting.

Static
electricity differs from the charge on an electron. Static
electricity ALWAYS has voltage, the charge on an electron does not
necessarily have voltage.

That's nonsense. A static charge has voltage by dint of
position -- voltage is a measure of the field strength
in the form of potential energy. Any charge Q has a
voltage potential according to position in space given
by V = k*Q/r^2. This is analogous to the gravitational
potential P = G*M/r^2 for a mass M. In both cases the
potential resolves to a net force per unit of charge of
a test body at a position r distance units away from
the field source (Q coulombs of electric charge or
M units of mass "charge").

Ok, instead of static electricity, I should have said ELECTRIC FIELD
ENERGY. Suppose a current of ONE electron enters a (small) vacuum
tube diode and the electron causes a static electric field (voltage)
between cathode and plate. A free electron generated by thermionic
emission at the cathode would be accelerated toward the plate by
voltage F = q*voltage.

I have difficulty reconciling how the voltage gradient between plate
and cathode could be caused by a single electron's V = k*Q/r^2
relation, except that the k*Q/r^2 relation is an amount of energy that
could EQUAL the amount of energy you receive when you get shocked by
static electricity.

I am increasingly impressed by your nonsequiturs.

You've postulated an anode to cathode static potential
created by the excess of a single electron on the
cathode of a diode. You then declare disbelief that
the resulting voltage could be due to the charge on that
electron that you proposed, and then leap to an
improbable comparison of this meager charge to that
involved in commonplace static electric shocks. Really,
I don't see what this rambling accomplishes.

In a really clumsy way I was trying to show that for each electron,

the energy converted to electric field energy is small compared to the
electrostatic influence of a stationary electron near the vacuum. What
happens to spent electrons is important because the vacuum does not
collect the electrons that no longer carry extra energy.

Quote:
In order to estimate the electric field potential
due to a single electron excess on the cathode of
the diode, simply employ the formulae for the voltage
of a parallel plate capacitor.

C = eps0*Epsr*A/d ;capacitance of parallel plate capacitor

V = Q/C ;voltage on capacitor given charge stored

In the above, simply make Q equal to the charge on the
single electron. eps0 is the permittivity of free space,
and epsr the dialectric constant. Since the diode contains
a vacuum, epsr = 1 by definition. A and d are the plate
area and separation respectively.

Good, you recognized the plate / cathode of a vacuum diode is a

capacitor with an electric field. What happens to the spent electrons
(if any) that created the electric field.
Quote:

Perhaps current itself does not exist. Perhaps current is magnetism
and the magnetism is not evenly stored within a wire - more magnetism
is stored in a loop in the wire than in the straight part of a wire.
The electric field energy within a capacitor's dielectric material
converts to magnetism. The low amount of initial (apparent) current
to an inductor is due to the distribution of magnetic energy and does
not indicate that a low amount of energy is entering the inductor. A
larger initial amount of electric field energy converts to magnetic
energy at the coil than at the straight part of the wire.

I'm afraid that, in my opinion, you're heading off deep
into fantasy land. We *define* a current to be the
movement of electric charges. We empirically note that
moving charges produce magnetic fields. We empirically
note that accelerated charged emit electromagnet fields
that are decoupled from the charges and carry off energy.
Faraday, Hertz, Lenz, and of course, Maxwell ensue.

Admittedly the above scenario is invalid if charge carriers are

responsible for current. My point was that charge carriers are not
responsible for current.
Quote:

Perhaps also there is more than one type of electric field energy.
Current within a lead acid cell's electrolyte differs from current
through metals and resistors. The conductive path within H2SO4 does
not short the voltage between lead acid cell terminals, as would be
expected from metallic or resistive conductors. Joining two galvanic
half cells with a conductor instead of a salt bridge, stops production
of current.

Metals have resistance too. It is merely a matter of
degree. Your argument is specious.

I think a lead acid cell acts more like a pair of diodes than a

metallic resistor.
Quote:

The SPECIAL electric field energy within the lead acid cell
electrolyte H2SO4 is generated by chemical reactions between H2SO4 and
the terminals. H2SO4 is otherwise an insulator, as evidenced by use
of H2SO4 as dielectric material in capacitors. Just as regular
electric field energy distributes itself within an insulator, SPECIAL
electric field energy distributes itself throughout the electrolyte.

The SPECIAL electric field energy requires a second port to an
external conductor (similar to a capacitor needing two plates) to
complete a magnetic circuit. Consider that in a charging lead acid
cell, all reactants are in the electrolyte. If the reactions did not
depend on the interface between the electrolyte and the terminals, the
reaction products Pb(s) and PbO2 would appear throughout the
electrolyte. The oxidation / reduction reactions generating special
static electricity, must be located at the electrolyte / terminal
interfaces for both charging and discharging.

Anode PbSO4 + 2H2O ==> PbO2 + H2SO4 + 2H+1 + 2e (1.68 volts)

Cathode PbSO4 + 2H+1 + 2e ==> Pb + H2SO4 (.356 volts)

Sorry for presenting ideas in a sloppy fashion. It is tough to find
(half baked) discrepencies among theories. Requesting clarification
as to the validity of the discrepencies without omitting relavant data
or other forms of sloppiness is double tough.
snip

I can see no justification for invoking a new type of
electric field (and the accompanying charge carriers and
particle family implications), when existing theory, if
properly understood and applied, accounts most satisfactorily
for all so far observed phenomena.

Which existing theory explains why the reaction PRODUCTS Pb(s) and

PbO2 deposit at the terminals instead of throughout the electrolyte?
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:h07sb2pumrstk5gmbb4keooe11iid5t6mr@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:09:23 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:odkib2ha8ebfitfteaacv7ubikqjspqeu2@4ax.com...


[snip]

Quote:

Simple, When an electron emits a photon through synchrotron radiation,
the electron does not lose mass nor gravity. Only a conversion of
electron kinetic energy to photon occurs.

This does not fully address the question, "What are the properties of
this 'pure energy'". It does not, for example, in any way
distinguish between your pure energy concept and the standard
model description of a photon.

QED indicates photons have spin. Photon emission from synchrotron
radiation has no QUANTUM emission requirement (all frequencies are
permitted) just as magnetism is non-quantized energy. I question the
assignment of a quantized feature to a non-quantized entity.

Photons can be of any energy content. It's the processes
of their creation and absorbtion that involve quantization.
This is true of both electric and magnetic interactions.

The photon's spin allows photons to move angular momentum
about as well as linear momentum; this is how the momentum
books are kept in balance when a electron, accelerating
in a circular path, emits energy in the form of synchrotron
radiation and alters both its linear and angular momenta.

[snip]

Quote:
I was claiming that photons NEVER have magnetism. Production of
magnetism requires inductance.

Well, that's not an idea that is supported empirically.
No inductance is needed by a moving charge to produce
an electromagnetic field. See Maxwell's Laws.

Why not do some problem solving instead of assuming Maxwell was right.
Could it be that Maxwell's equations have a units problem? Otherwise,
Maxwell's equations are proof that magnetism that does not vary with
inductance.

Maxwell's equations in the classical realm have been
unassailed through a great many years of empirical
testing. They have never failed to give up the straight
goods. Magnetic flux produced by a current in a
solenoid is proportional to the ampere turns. Inductance
is a consequence of the geometry of the current and the
resulting energy storage in the field (and so depends
upon the geometry of the field and the properties of
the medium in which it exists -- permitivity and
permeability).

[snip]

Quote:

Also, velocity is a purely relative measure. There are
always objects moving at very high velocities with respect
to us, so that from their point of view, it is we who are
travelling at very high velocities. Yet we do not appear
to have any problem concerning having time for things to
take place.

The laws of physics are taken to be symmetrical and
uniform, and identical in all inertial frames of
reference.

So time on a photon is undefined because a photon is not material?

More or less. Lacking rest mass, the photon is constrained
to move at c. The laws of physics as laid out in Relativity
theory indicate that the photon does not provide a valid
inertial frame of reference, as no *physical* object can ever
exist in such a frame.

[snip]

Quote:

Particle collisions creating black holes? Shouldn't an
electron-positron combine to form a black hole instead of
annihilation?

It is not enrtirely inconceivable that a microscopic
black hole is a brief intermediate stage of the
anihilation process. After all, electrons and their
poitron counterparts, are to the best of our knowledge
point particles. When they come together to anihilate,
the mass-energy density would be enormous. The resulting
black hole would evaporate essentially immediately,
producing the observed photon emissions.

Shouldn't a range of emission frequencies from a black hole increase
as the event horizon approaches the inner mass?

In general, smaller black holes are "hotter" and emit
more energy in the form of photons and particles than
do larger black holes. As a black hole shrinks, higher
energy photons and larger particles can be created as
there are more possible ways for the energy to manifest
as particles.

But eventually the evaporating black hole reaches the point
where, due to conservation laws, the number of ways that
it can the energy can manifest and still maintain those
laws is severely limited. A black hole with the mass of
two electrons would be expected to either create a
positron-electron pair (and you're back to where you
started), or a pair of photons moving in opposite directions
each carrying away half of the energy. Energy, charge, linear
momentum, and angular momentum are thus all conserved.

Presumably it would also be possible for other, symmetric
arrangements of photons to be emitted too, such as four
photons each with 1/4 the energy, and quantum theory
should permit the calculation of the probability of this
happening. The most likely scenario is the two photon
split and others, I gather are much, much less probable
outcomes.


Quote:
[snip]


Within this thread, I've been calling the electric field energy
responsible for voltage "static electricity". I think the electric
field energy in a capacitor is the same energy as the static
electricity that makes your hair stick out. From now on, I'll avoid
the ambiguous term "static electricity".

I do not think electrical current is not energy carried by moving
charges! Free electrons do not transport electric field energy
because free electrons cannot transport electric field energy without
converting the voltage to electron acceleration, thus increasing
electron kinetic energy. Electron kinetic energy is not current,
except by a definition that I disagree with.

What definition would that be? Current is defined as the
motion of charges. The electron happens to carry a charge
and happen to be the most familiar example of something that
is a charge carfrier. But that is entirely incidental;
anything that happens to have a charge can be used as the
carrier (which is why we refer to "charge carriers" rather
than just electrons in general.

I think current (which might exist only as magnetism) can move energy
without moving a charge. A definition of electrical current as a
movement of electrons fails to account for the role of a closed
circuit.

As far as we have ever been able to ascertain, magnetic fields
only arise as a result of the movement of charges. Thus, for
a magnetic fields to interact in a way to move energy about,
moving charges *must* be involved.

Again, an electric current is defined as the movement of
charges, and they need not necessarily be carried by
electrons. In what way does the movement of charges fail
to account for the "role of a closed circuit"?

Quote:


In a vacuum tube diode, voltage accelerates the electrons released by
thermionic emission. As voltage accelerates a free electron, electric
field energy becomes depleted due to conservation of energy. The
direction of the accelerated electron is opposite of the direction of
current (energy) must flow to replace lost static electricity.

Conservation of charge argues otherwise. If the accelerated
particles do not reach the anode (for example, if the anode
in fact has an aperture that allows the elctrons to pass
through without impact) then there is no anode current.

If the electric field of a vacuum tube diode causes low energy
electrons from the cathode to become high energy electrons at the
anode, where are the electrons that replenish the electric field?

Take a close look at a typical vacuum tube circuit. The
cathode to anode potential is maintained by a power
supply.

Quote:

Similarly, a permanent magnet can be used to deflect
electrons without ever using up its magnetic potential.

Why did you pick this example? I disagree with it, changing linear
electron motion to circular motion requires energy. When motion of a
permanent magnet causes a MAGNETIC field, then the permanent magnet
does not lose energy.

A permanent magnet does not have to move in order to
cause a magnetic field. When charged particles move
in a static magnetic field they change direction but
not kinetic energy, so that no energy is "consumed"
from the magnet. Of course, momentum must be
conserved, and if the magnet were free to move then
it would be deflected by the passing electrons.
The behavior would be akin to the elastic scattering
of objects.

Quote:

A current of electrons cannot convert to voltage within a vacuum tube
diode, because electrons cannot simultaneously lose kinetic energy to
create voltage and gain kinetic energy by voltage acceleration caused
by the voltage.

I fail to extract anything frm the above. Electrons do not "convert
to voltage". Voltage is simply a measure of the strength of
the field potential due to the relative location of electric
charges. You seem to want to attribute properties to things
like current and voltage that are not consistent with their
defintions.

Ok, I should have said 'increase voltage, instead of 'convert to
voltage' or 'create voltage'. How can an electron ADD electric field
energy to a vacuum when electrons CONVERT electric field energy to
kinetic energy?

An electric field accelerates a charge, thus imparting
kinetic energy to the charge carrier. It's much like a
mass falling in a gravitational potential. In the case
of an electron falling through the electric potential
in a vacuum tube, the energy ultimately comes from the
power supply that maintains the potential gradient.

Quote:

Consider also that a spinning metal disk within a magnetic field
acquires magnetism.

It also acquires an electric potential and can drive a
hefty current (Faraday Disk Generator). The phenomenon of eddy
currents is nothing remarkable.

Changing the magnetic field within a
(super)conductor produces magnetism (LENZ'S LAW). If electron
velocity completely (and permanently) converts to magnetism, the
electron stops due to conservation of energy.

Now your attributing physical properties to velocity.
How can velocity, a measure that's entirely relative
to the given observor, "convert" to something physical?

When a 'new' magnetic field within the disk opposes the applied
magnetic field, thus the disk slows. Magnetic energy does work by
changing the kinetic energy to the disk by slowing the disk. Adding
rotational energy to spin the disk will balance the magnetic energy
opposing the motion (an electric generator).

If electrons in the disk acquire magnetic energy strong enough to
compensate for disk kinetic energy loss, what gives the electrons
energy to form a magnetic field?

You need to specify what energy source is maintaining the
angular momentum of the disk. If it's a mechanical drive,
then that is where the energy is coming from, and it is
being dissipated via eddy currents as heat in the disk (unless
there's an external circuit and load as in the case of a
Faraday generator).

Quote:

The fact that any electron kinetic energy that becomes magnetism must
be subtracted from the electron's kinetic energy, conflicts with many
established theories (for example, Maxwell's equations).

Kinetic energy is not magnetic. I really fail to see where
you're getting these odd ideas. Further, you are being
disengenuous when you say that a moving charge's field
energy would conflict with Maxwell, for it is Maxwell that
predicts the result!

Maxwell was wrong! A magnetic field stores electromagnetic energy
around a conductor, not an electron. Magnetic energy converts to an
electric field energy when its conductive path is broken. Electric
field energy is not created when the path of an electron is broken.

I suspect that you may not understand Maxwell's equations.

A magnetic field stores energy, yes. A moving charge
is accompanied by a magnetic field. The charge does
not *have* to be associated with an electron. It could
just as easily be tied to a proton or muon. It just so happens
that we have never encountered a "bare" electric charge that
is not associated with some particle. But that does not
mean that the particle, whatever it happens to be, is in
any way an integral part of the electromagnetic theory which
deals with charges alone.

Also, if the path of an electron is "broken" as you
put it, so that the electron's motion is stopped, it
decelerates rapidly and emits an electromegnetic
field. This, in fact, is how X-ray machines operate.
An electron beam collides with a fixed target and
the kinetic energy (and magnetic field energy) is
given up in the form of x-rays.

Quote:

Further, there is no conflict with
conservation as the energy that goes into the magnetic
field is merely shifted from the electric field. As I
said previously, the magnetic field observed around moving
charges is simply a Lorentz-perspective view of the
electric field of the charge.

I agree that electric field energy converts to magnetic energy when a
conductor shorts the electric field. I do not agree that an electric
field requires electrons - a vacuum can contain an electric field
without containing electrons.

I never said that an electric field requires electrons.
In fact I've been stressing this very point.

Also, what exactly do you mean when you say "a conductor
shorts the electric field"? Are you refering to a
free-floating length of conductor embedded in an
electric field, or to a conductor placed across, say,
the terminals of battery?

Quote:

I also do not agree that "the magnetic field observed around moving
charges is simply a Lorentz-perspective view of the electric field of
the charge". A charge has an electrostatic field, not an electric
field. Electrons traveling at relativistic speeds do not necessarily
produce magnetism because increasing the velocity of an electron only
increases kinetic energy, not kinetic energy + magnetic energy.

Nope. Please define and contrast your concepts of electric
field versus electrostatic field. This may be the crux of
the situation.

When electrons are accelerated we're dealing with a
particle with mass, so relativistic effects come into
effect at high velocities. The charge is just along
for the ride on the mass. The magnetic field of the
moving electron is consistent with Maxwell's laws
as viewed relativistically (see: "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies" by A. Einstein).

Quote:

Magnetism ALWAYS accompanies current,
magnetism does not necessarily accompany static electricity.

In fact, it should *not* accompany purely static electricity.

The middle capacitor of three capacitors connected in series become
charged upon application of voltage to the external ends of the outer
capacitors. An electric field, not electrons enter the center
capacitor.

There is charge separation and storage of field energy
in the dielectric. If you remove the center capacitor
from the circuit (after the circuit has reached equilibrium
following application of the potential to the outer
conductors), then a voltage potential will be measured
in that capacitor. There will be an excess of charge
carries on one plate, and a corresponding dearth on
the other. If the capacitor's leas are then shorted,
a current will flow and the charge difference will be
equalized. The field energy will be partially emitted
as a brief electromagnetic emission, but mostly
dissipated in the resistance of the wiring as heat in
non-ideal components.

[snip]

Quote:
In a really clumsy way I was trying to show that for each electron,
the energy converted to electric field energy is small compared to the
electrostatic influence of a stationary electron near the vacuum. What
happens to spent electrons is important because the vacuum does not
collect the electrons that no longer carry extra energy.

In a vacuum tube, the anode potential with respect to the
cathode is maintained by an external power supply. The
"excess" electrons that arrive at the anode are "pumped"
away from the anode by this power supply.

Now, if there were no external circuit and supply, the
anode would eventually lose its positive potential
as electrons arrived and cancelled it. It might be
of interest to note that in a triode, a negative
charge on the grid electrode will build up and
choke off the cathod to anode current unless the
grid bias is maintained externally. In some circuits
what is known as a "grid leak resistor" drains this
charge to ground.

Quote:

In order to estimate the electric field potential
due to a single electron excess on the cathode of
the diode, simply employ the formulae for the voltage
of a parallel plate capacitor.

C = eps0*Epsr*A/d ;capacitance of parallel plate capacitor

V = Q/C ;voltage on capacitor given charge stored

In the above, simply make Q equal to the charge on the
single electron. eps0 is the permittivity of free space,
and epsr the dialectric constant. Since the diode contains
a vacuum, epsr = 1 by definition. A and d are the plate
area and separation respectively.

Good, you recognized the plate / cathode of a vacuum diode is a
capacitor with an electric field. What happens to the spent electrons
(if any) that created the electric field.

The cathod to anode field is created by an external power
supply. In effect, some electrons are removed from the
anode via the external circuitry (leaving a net positive
charge), while some are added to the cathode via the same
circuit. The external supply maintains the charge separation.

Quote:

Perhaps current itself does not exist. Perhaps current is magnetism
and the magnetism is not evenly stored within a wire - more magnetism
is stored in a loop in the wire than in the straight part of a wire.
The electric field energy within a capacitor's dielectric material
converts to magnetism. The low amount of initial (apparent) current
to an inductor is due to the distribution of magnetic energy and does
not indicate that a low amount of energy is entering the inductor. A
larger initial amount of electric field energy converts to magnetic
energy at the coil than at the straight part of the wire.

I'm afraid that, in my opinion, you're heading off deep
into fantasy land. We *define* a current to be the
movement of electric charges. We empirically note that
moving charges produce magnetic fields. We empirically
note that accelerated charged emit electromagnet fields
that are decoupled from the charges and carry off energy.
Faraday, Hertz, Lenz, and of course, Maxwell ensue.

Admittedly the above scenario is invalid if charge carriers are
responsible for current. My point was that charge carriers are not
responsible for current.

Well, given that current is *defined* to be the movement
of charge, and that charge appears to be inseparable from
charge carriers, I don't see how you can avoid dealing
with them. Of course, as I already stated above, the
charge carriers (electrons, protons, quarks, whatever)
are incidental to the picture. It's the charges that
matter as far as current is concerned.

Quote:

Perhaps also there is more than one type of electric field energy.
Current within a lead acid cell's electrolyte differs from current
through metals and resistors. The conductive path within H2SO4 does
not short the voltage between lead acid cell terminals, as would be
expected from metallic or resistive conductors. Joining two galvanic
half cells with a conductor instead of a salt bridge, stops production
of current.

Metals have resistance too. It is merely a matter of
degree. Your argument is specious.

I think a lead acid cell acts more like a pair of diodes than a
metallic resistor.

Perhaps you can expand a bit on this concept? I'm afraid
I'm not following you.

Quote:

The SPECIAL electric field energy within the lead acid cell
electrolyte H2SO4 is generated by chemical reactions between H2SO4 and
the terminals. H2SO4 is otherwise an insulator, as evidenced by use
of H2SO4 as dielectric material in capacitors. Just as regular
electric field energy distributes itself within an insulator, SPECIAL
electric field energy distributes itself throughout the electrolyte.

The SPECIAL electric field energy requires a second port to an
external conductor (similar to a capacitor needing two plates) to
complete a magnetic circuit. Consider that in a charging lead acid
cell, all reactants are in the electrolyte. If the reactions did not
depend on the interface between the electrolyte and the terminals, the
reaction products Pb(s) and PbO2 would appear throughout the
electrolyte. The oxidation / reduction reactions generating special
static electricity, must be located at the electrolyte / terminal
interfaces for both charging and discharging.

Anode PbSO4 + 2H2O ==> PbO2 + H2SO4 + 2H+1 + 2e (1.68 volts)

Cathode PbSO4 + 2H+1 + 2e ==> Pb + H2SO4 (.356 volts)

Sorry for presenting ideas in a sloppy fashion. It is tough to find
(half baked) discrepencies among theories. Requesting clarification
as to the validity of the discrepencies without omitting relavant data
or other forms of sloppiness is double tough.
snip

I can see no justification for invoking a new type of
electric field (and the accompanying charge carriers and
particle family implications), when existing theory, if
properly understood and applied, accounts most satisfactorily
for all so far observed phenomena.

Which existing theory explains why the reaction PRODUCTS Pb(s) and
PbO2 deposit at the terminals instead of throughout the electrolyte?

Electrochemistry primarily. Also solution equilibria.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [37 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:01 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Is there a way to write out the process of the cumulative... Michael11 Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:16 am
No new posts Relative motion from individual motion kenseto Relativity 79 Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:16 am
No new posts Brownian motion, covariance Ken Honda Math 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:48 pm
No new posts 3D motion of an Object IED Physics 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:56 pm
No new posts Time dilation mirrors perpendicular to motion Zinc Potterman Relativity 20 Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:43 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.6614s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4525s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]