is the magnetic field really moving?
phil-new...@ipal.net
the same?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
Timo A. Nieminen
> Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> the same?
Personally, I'd say "no" (and more below on this), but it doesn't matter
one way or the other - the physical effects (as far as we know) only care
if the field _changes_. If we just ask what effect will there be on
charges (freely moving charged particles, charged particles in a
conductor, whatever), "motion" of the field has no effect.
Beyond this, and I think that this is a strong argument for saying that
fields don't move (even if they do change) is that the division of a
magnetic field into "field of object A", "field of object B", "field of
object C" is a mathematical convenience, at most. I would say that
physically, we have one magnetic field (perhaps better to say EM field).
If a source moves, the field might change, but how can that make it
_move_?
For example, we are free to use the scalar and vector potential instead of
E&H. Given an electrostatic potential, the potential physically tells us
the potential energy of a test charge at any position. How can this
"move", in any physically meaningful sense of "move"? Likewise, the
E-field tells us the force that would act on a test charge. Ditto.
I like the analogy of the surface of a pond. Our field is the height of
the surface. We can have waves in the pond, from many types of sources,
but we only have one height of the surface at any time at any horizontal
position. Is it meaningful to say that height(x,y) moves (horizontally)?
Now, electromagnetic field energy, momentum, and angular momentum can
move, but these are transported by EM waves. Considering that EM waves can
pass through the same point at the same time, travelling in different
directions, in what direction would the field be "moving" at that point?
For even more fun, we can have an EM wave moving energy, momentum, and AM,
with the magnitudes of E&H remaining constant at every point in space (a
circularly polarised wave - the magnitudes remain the same, but the field
vectors rotate).
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Benj
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2008, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> > the same?
>
> Personally, I'd say "no" (and more below on this), but it doesn't matter
> one way or the other - the physical effects (as far as we know) only care
> if the field _changes_. If we just ask what effect will there be on
> charges (freely moving charged particles, charged particles in a
> conductor, whatever), "motion" of the field has no effect.
Personally, I'd say "yes" (and more below on this), but Timo is
absolutely correct in saying that in the case of physical effects it
doesn't matter. In most cases you can start with an assumption of
either field motion OR non-motion and the same answers seem to come
out!
But the arguments on the "motion" side stem from the basic and
foundational relationship of Electromagnetics which is that F = qV X B
which is to say that a charged particle in relative motion with
respect to a magnetic field experiences a sideways force. Sometimes
this force is interpreted as an E field, but that isn't the issue. The
issue is that usually we think of an inertial frame fixed to the field
and the particle moving through it. But in actual fact it is just the
relative motion of the two that is necessary.
So one can indeed imagine that a field is "attached" to a magnet and
the field actually "moves" with it. Hence if you move a magnet near a
charged particle it should experience the above force. But all is not
well here. Enter the Dwight-Bewley paradox. Here you have two magnets
with the North poles facing each other. In the central region where
the B field actually measures zero, you find that a wire there will
apparently experience induction if you move one or both magnets. That
induction is explained by the qV x B equation if the fields are
attached to the magnets. But oddly B = 0 so the equation says no EMF
should be observed. The explanation is to use superposition to split
the two fields, but that gets weird as it says that the field from
each magnet is flowing normally and is unaffected by that of the other
magnet.
Arguments over Dwight-Bewley have raged and continue to rage. The
issue is NOT resolved and until someone does a definitive experiment,
it appears it will not be resolved. The bottom line in all this is
that one can only conclude that there has been a lot of confusion
generated by the historical rules of "flux cutting" and "flux
linking". These rules are confusing and often are invalid. Going back
to first principles works, but then we discover as TImo suggests, that
nothing ends up resolved with respect to fields attached to magnets.
So this is where we stand: people like Timo and I have our opinions
but the experiments have not been done to prove either of us right. So
are the fields somehow fixed in space and when you move a magnet
around it only "pumps up" the magnitude of the fields or are they
indeed attached to the magnets and moving with them. Right now there
are no conclusions.
Salmon Egg
wrote:
> Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> the same?
No! How would you go about checking for motion?
Bill
Benj
> In article <g6ana402...@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net
> wrote:
>
> > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> > the same?
>
> No! How would you go about checking for motion?
Good question. One answer may be related to the question of whether a
magnetic field rotates with a rotating magnet. This is the so-called
"bristle theory" which implies that the flux lines rotate with the
magnet like the bristles of a hair brush. The problem with going
about checking for such a theory is that if you use closed loops of
wire as a sensing element, it turns out that you can calculate the
same answer by EITHER assuming the field rotates or by assuming it
doesn't. Both give the same answer by the nature of the properties of
a wire loop. Therefore the only true way to check is to use some other
sensor method. The various ones proposed are electrostatic. The basic
ideas are to generate qVxB emf from a moving field and store the
voltage by electrostatic means. You then measure the stored voltage
after the magnet has stopped moving.
maxwell
Carpenter.
In other words, the reality is the POTENTIAL to change the world, not
the mathematical intermediaries (fields in what?) that derive from
some quasi-statistical theory, such 'classical' EM.
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Jul 25, 12:27 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 4:46 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2008, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
>>>> Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
>>>> the same?
>>
>>> Personally, I'd say "no" (and more below on this), but it doesn't matter
>>> one way or the other - the physical effects (as far as we know) only care
>>> if the field _changes_.
>>
>> Personally, I'd say "yes" (and more below on this), but Timo is
>> absolutely correct in saying that in the case of physical effects it
>> doesn't matter. In most cases you can start with an assumption of
>> either field motion OR non-motion and the same answers seem to come
>> out!
>>
> No problem if you work with em potentials (a la Lorenz); check C. J.
> Carpenter.
> In other words, the reality is the POTENTIAL to change the world, not
> the mathematical intermediaries (fields in what?) that derive from
> some quasi-statistical theory, such 'classical' EM.
But already there are no problems, since the question is irrelevant to
physical effects. But working with potentials doesn't even avoid the
question; it just moves the question.
New question: Is the vector potential really moving?
Salmon Egg
> wrote:
>
> > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> > the same?
>
> No! How would you go about checking for motion?
Dip a bar magnet into iron filings to map the lines of force. Rotate the
magnet and you can see the "lines" rotating with the magnet. This
experiment must have been performed countless times.
On the other hand, perform an experiment with a rotating nozzle on the
end of a hose. Does the column of water leaving the nozzle rotate with
the nozzle?
Bill
maxwell
Your potential to change your job only travels with you in a
metaphorical sense. It is only entities that may move through space
independently over time. Hence electrons etc are entities & they can
move through space. Unless you are prepared to say that a field is an
entity (like a water wave) can you expect to say it moves
independently. This type of discussion illustrates the problems that
occur when philosophy gets divorced from physics.
Don Kelly
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-6A835...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
But as the filings form lines of little magnets which are "attached" to each
other and to the magnet- and are stable in position with respect to the
magnet- likely as determined by minor variations in the surface - why should
they not move with the magnet. Now a thin film of lubricant on the magnet
might show something different :)
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
Salmon Egg
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Dip a bar magnet into iron filings to map the lines of force. Rotate the
> > magnet and you can see the "lines" rotating with the magnet. This
> > experiment must have been performed countless times.
> >
> > On the other hand, perform an experiment with a rotating nozzle on the
> > end of a hose. Does the column of water leaving the nozzle rotate with
> > the nozzle?
> >
> > Bill
> -------------
> But as the filings form lines of little magnets which are "attached" to each
> other and to the magnet- and are stable in position with respect to the
> magnet- likely as determined by minor variations in the surface - why should
> they not move with the magnet. Now a thin film of lubricant on the magnet
> might show something different :)
>
> --
>
> Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
> remove the X to answer
I just thought of another experiment or two. Make a solenoid wound on
cardboard tube many (10) times longer than its diameter. Tuck a battery
inside the tube to drive the solenoid. Cap the tube ends with
nonmagnetic thrust bearings. Sprinkle the iron filings on the caps to
map the lines of force.
Rotate the caps while keeping the tube stationary. The "lines" rotate.
Now keep the caps from rotating and rotate the main solenoid. Now, the
"lines" do not rotate with the solenoid.
Draw your own conclusions.
Bill
Vince Morgan
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-6A835...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field
remains
> > > the same?
> >
> > No! How would you go about checking for motion?
> end of a hose. Does the column of water leaving the nozzle rotate with
> the nozzle?
>
the nozle boundaries, which they must to some extent. And one could expect
a magnetic field to rotate via interaction with the magnets material in
similar a veign.
Not that I beleive that a magnetic field does rotate, but I do beleive that
is what is intuitively expected. I'm sure Faraday was surprised.
The fact that it appears that it doesn't rotate fascinates me.
Vince
Don Kelly
That's good, I like that. ;)
Benj
> Rotate the caps while keeping the tube stationary. The "lines" rotate.
> Now keep the caps from rotating and rotate the main solenoid. Now, the
> "lines" do not rotate with the solenoid.
>
> Draw your own conclusions.
OK. My conclusion is that iron filings don't "map" lines of force at
all. "Lines of Force" are a rather bogus concept to begin with and
iron filings only make patterns that LOOK like "lines of force", but
certainly don't somehow measure or represent them. The only "true
test" of your experiment would be to somehow measure qVxB emfs at the
end caps. And note that you must do that WITHOUT using current loops.
If you use loops then you get the same result no matter if you assume
the fields move with the magnets or if you assume they don't. What
changes is the portion of the sensing loop where the voltage is
induced.
phil-new...@ipal.net
How about a variation of Faraday's Homopolar Generator ... the one with a big
round magnet above the disk, and another below the disk, where the magnets
rotate with the disk?
The flaw in Faraday's design is that the connection loop between the axle and
the edge brushes is within the "extraneous" field. This loop is stationary
but in a field sourced from rotating magnets. This experiment is ambiguous
because it can be explained in terms of a rotating field inducing potential
in the "extraneous" connections.
So what is needed is to eliminate the effect of the extraneous connections in
an extraneous field, by eliminating those connections altogether. I suggested
a model for such a thing in another post, but I don't know if anyone really
understood it. So what I will do here is explain something simpler.
The problem is that to measure the potential, we have to form a circuit, which
will be a loop in the field. While all of that loop will be within the same
field, it won't all have the same motion relative to the expected potential.
Imagine a loop of wire (with some on board means to detect current in that
loop at some small point in the loop). You draw an arrow around the loop to
show an expected current direction. Part of the loop is moving in on direction
relative to that arrow and field, and part is moving in the opposite direction
relative to that arrow. We can see that if there is going to be a potential
produced, half the loop will produce it in one direction, and half in the
other direction. The two potentials will buck each other and no net current
can be detected.
The simplified design I suggest is this. There are 2 spokes going outward from
the axle to the edge of the disk at 180 degree opposite directions. There is a
circular rim all the way around the disk. The 2 spokes connect to each other
at the axle. They both also connect to the rim. The spokes and rim are metal
to be conductive (for example, copper wire). The rest of the disk will be some
non-conductive material (for example a round piece of plastic).
With a single uniform magnet, the 2 spokes will have a bucking potential. So
instead of that, we have split magnets shaped as half circles. On half of the
disk, we arrange the magnets so the field direction is reversed relative to
the other half. The spoke conductors are aligned to be in the middle of each
of the magnets. There are 2 magnets on one side of the disk, one with N facing
the disk, and the other with S facing the disk. On the other side of the disk
there are 2 more magnets, one with S facing the N magnet from the first side,
and one with N facing the S magnet from the first side. With the reversed
field on one of the spokes, its potential should boost the other spoke instead
of buck against it.
The rim should not have a potential along its running length since the motion
of the rim is along the length, not at 90 degrees from it.
phil-new...@ipal.net
|> In article <g6ana402...@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net
|> wrote:
|>
|> > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
|> > the same?
|>
|> No! How would you go about checking for motion?
|
| Dip a bar magnet into iron filings to map the lines of force. Rotate the
| magnet and you can see the "lines" rotating with the magnet. This
| experiment must have been performed countless times.
This would need to be a round bar to assure no variation in field with the
rotation. Have you done this?
| On the other hand, perform an experiment with a rotating nozzle on the
| end of a hose. Does the column of water leaving the nozzle rotate with
| the nozzle?
That depends on whether the nozzle is the source of the water, or its guide.
Since it is merely a guide, it is not an analogy to magnets.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| I just thought of another experiment or two. Make a solenoid wound on
| cardboard tube many (10) times longer than its diameter. Tuck a battery
| inside the tube to drive the solenoid. Cap the tube ends with
| nonmagnetic thrust bearings. Sprinkle the iron filings on the caps to
| map the lines of force.
|
| Rotate the caps while keeping the tube stationary. The "lines" rotate.
| Now keep the caps from rotating and rotate the main solenoid. Now, the
| "lines" do not rotate with the solenoid.
|
| Draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion is that the caps, on which there are the iron filings, caused
the filings to rotate when the caps rotated, and caused the filings to not
rotate when the caps did not rotate.
The experiment needs to be sure no other forces, like mechanical, can be
involved.
phil-new...@ipal.net
Does the magnetic field of the Earth rotate with it? One complication with
examining that is knowing whether or not the source of the field (deep inside
the Earth's core, I pressume) also rotates at the same speed/direction.
phil-new...@ipal.net
If I place a round magnet near a round piece of iron, where each are on
separate axles aligned in the same axis and free to rotate, would rotating
the magnet cause the iron to rotate?
Don Kelly
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g6vde...@news5.newsguy.com...
In one case you can measure the axle to rim voltage but in your case with 2
magnets it becomes a problem as the spokes are in parallel. In this case
you need to either open the loop or somehow measure any circulating current
in the loop. A bit of a problem if you are trying to avoid extraneous
connections. However there are devices that can be put in line that
chemically measure charge transfer and using one of these and running for
some time, you would, at least, get an indication whether there was a
current.
However, all you will have is an awkward equivalent to a coil rotating in a
field. It will not be a homopolar generator. --
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
>
Benj
> If I place a round magnet near a round piece of iron, where each are on
> separate axles aligned in the same axis and free to rotate, would rotating
> the magnet cause the iron to rotate?
This experiment has been done and the answer is "no" [even if the Iron
is another magnet].
This answer should be obvious if you take a bit of time to examine the
forces generated by the fields on the pieces. Even if you assume the
field of the rotating magnet is rotating with it, you find that there
is NO mechanism that can impart rotational forces to the second piece.
All forces that might be generated are in the wrong directions.
phil-new...@ipal.net
Now the next question (before I extend this on to the Faraday Homopolar
Generator) is, would a non-rotating magnet cause a non-rotating round piece
of iron to slow down and stop? Your description would suggest "no" even in
this case. That would then suggest that motion of a wire _in_ (but not
across) a magnetic field (e.g. the magnet is moving with the wire) could
generate an electrical potential.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| In one case you can measure the axle to rim voltage but in your case with 2
| magnets it becomes a problem as the spokes are in parallel. In this case
| you need to either open the loop or somehow measure any circulating current
| in the loop. A bit of a problem if you are trying to avoid extraneous
| connections. However there are devices that can be put in line that
| chemically measure charge transfer and using one of these and running for
| some time, you would, at least, get an indication whether there was a
| current.
In the classic Faraday generator made with spokes (also, a solid disk can be
consider an infinite number of spokes), they would be in parallel. But in
the example I'm trying to give, they are in _series_ and also have magnetic
differences that their motion difference (due to being on the 180 degree side
of the disk) produce electric potential in the same direction.
So it's an issue of measuring the current through the loop that consists of
2 spokes in series that may generate potential, and one or two paths around
the edge that are not expected to generate potential because their motion
is in the same direction as the loop current flow would be (or opposite).
| However, all you will have is an awkward equivalent to a coil rotating in a
| field. It will not be a homopolar generator. --
If that works, I can expand on it.
I would next go to 12 spokes. These would not go all the way back to the
axle, but instead might go only part way, such half way. So on a disk face
that is non-conductive (wood, plastic, etc), the spokes are attached from
the point of 0.5 radius to the point near 1.0 radius.
Consider the disk in the horizontal orientation so the axis is vertical.
Looking down on the disk you see the spokes made of copper wire. The
spokes would be labeled "1" through "12" like the hour marks of a clock.
The EVEN spokes would have magnets above and below with N-pole facing up.
The ODD spokes would have magnets above and below with N-pole facing down.
The interconnection between the spokes would alternate. EVEN spokes would
connect to the next higher spoke at the edge. ODD spokes would connect to
the next higher spoke nearer the axis. These connections would be aligned
such that their movement as the disk rotates would be in the same direction
as current flow through them (so no potential is expected to be generated
in the connections).
Break ONE of the connections and insert the current measuring device in a
visible way (such as a light). Rotate the disk (and conductors and magnets).
If this generates electric potential, and current in the loop, then I would
extend it further. Two wires from the break can be run in parallel down to
the axle. A discontinguous axle made of conducting metal, but insulated from
each other, would have one wire connected to one axle and the other wire
connected to the other axle. A brush on each axle could take the power.
The next extension would be in the form of a lot more spokes and the copper
wire running round and round through these spoke positions many times. So
if I go to 24 spokes and loop the wire 100 times, I should have 2400 times
the voltage of a single spoke.
This all depends on whether an electric potential can be generated in a wire
_in_ a magnetic field as opposed to _through_ a magnetic field.
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g6ana...@news4.newsguy.com...
> Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field
> remains
> the same?
Yes x,y, and z coords are changing. the fields will fluxuate to a degree due
to interference from other fields nearby of variant strengths. a good
example is most iron cores in most electric motors. they are essentially a
moving magnet.
phil-new...@ipal.net
If the field _strength_ remains constant, then what is generating the potential?
If the magnet (full circle) is rotated around Faraday's stationary disk, what
is the disk "seeing" from the field?
Salmon Egg
wrote:
>
> If the magnet (full circle) is rotated around Faraday's stationary disk, what
> is the disk "seeing" from the field?
Here is a simple experiment. Take a round disk of aluminum. Drill a
small hole through its center. Suspend it from a fixed point using a
fine nonmagnetic wire or monofilament. A drop of acrylic cement might
help. This makes for a sensitive torsional pendulum.
Drive a disk magnet such as rare earth magnet to twist the pendulum in
case the field moves with the magnet. The disk magnet should be
magnetized along its thickness and mounted parallel to the aluminum
disk. Use a glass shield to keep the pendulum from turning by windage.
You also have to make sure that a magnetic field from the turning source
does not reach the aluminum.
Compare the deflection of the pendulum that way to what it is when a bar
magnet is mounted its north-south direction parallel to the aluminum
disk.
Go win a Nobel prize.
Bill
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g77kr...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:04:29 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> If the field _strength_ remains constant, then what is generating the
> potential?
>
equalibreum. Be it from seemingly rest energy or the act of transformation.
to achieve bieng a constant is to implicate satisfying conditions of
conservation of energy, thermodynamics and entropy. To understand this is to
acknowledge that these states exist in nature at random. They do and the one
component that is allways present with magnetic fields in nature MASS. This
should indicate that mass is magnetism. The greater the mass the more dense
the stronger the field. The greater the resistance to change.
The componants of the magnetic fields are not bothered by mass. They are
free to wander through it minimally uneffected. it doesn't stop where the
(physically entangeled masses) meet. allow two magnets to attract and pair
the attraction is constant. to assume it stops when the masses meet is
erronious. the field is not effected by the mass. In short the flux field is
what allows the transformation of energy between the poles and entangled
fields. it doesn't matter how many flux fields are paired the energy is
channeled through them effortlessly to emerge as strong as it entered the
initial flux field.
The photon in nature is traveling the path of infinity lensed by the flux
fields where the paths near. if there is multiple flux fields the photons
path will continue through the flux fields lensing (spinning and flipping)
as the photon is going through the wormhole of flux fields. till it emerges
from the other end to do an about face and re enter the flux field or fields
if multiple. The photons origin is somewhere within the mass and directly
entangled through attractive and repulsive forces that are a byproduct of
the photons polar presence.
> If the magnet (full circle) is rotated around Faraday's stationary disk,
> what
> is the disk "seeing" from the field?
>
>
same thing it see's if the magnet is stationary and the disc is rotated. the
entire flux field physically occupies the mass of the disk. the photon and
the electron share symmetry strong and weak forces differ between the two.
the disk is conductive. the magnet as a byproduct of charge with flux field
present and photons happily doing their dance at nearly light speed. the
photons for a brief moment share charges exciting the electrons within the
copper disk. rotating the disc or moving the magnets around the disk only
serves as the mechanism to move the deteriorating electron charge to the
pickup mechanism or means of inducing the carried charge.
Benj
> If the field _strength_ remains constant, then what is generating the potential?
relative motion between the magnetic field and the charges in the
conductors.
> If the magnet (full circle) is rotated around Faraday's stationary disk, what
> is the disk "seeing" from the field?
-------------------------------
In Faraday Generator, if the magnet is stationary and the disk rotates
you get an output.
Theory: Charges in moving disk move relative to fixed magnetic field
producing voltage. Connecting wires do not move with respect to magnet
so no induction there. You see a voltage output.
If Magnet is ATTACHED to disk and both spun (Classic "N" machine). Get
output!
Theory: If magnetic field is assumed to not rotate with magnet then we
have in essence the same situation as above.
Theory II: If the magnetic field is assume to rotate with magnet
(bristle theory) then since magnet and disk rotate together there is
no voltage induced in the disk. But magnet field is moving with
respect to hook-up wires and the voltage is induced in THEM!
If Magnet is spun but disk and wires stationary! No voltage.
Theory: If magnetic field does NOT rotate with magnet, then there is
no relative motion with respect to EITHER disk or hook-up wires so
there is no output.
Theory II: If magnetic field DOES rotate with magnet now there is a
voltage induced in the disk and one in the hook-up wires. They are
equal and opposite and CANCEL! Hence no output!
Basically you end up with no definitive answers using these
variations.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| On Aug 4, 3:21?pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> If the field _strength_ remains constant, then what is generating the potential?
|
| relative motion between the magnetic field and the charges in the
| conductors.
What aspect of the field is different in one place relative to another place
for the wire to have potential generated when it is moved between these places
when the intensity of the field is the sane?
This is because we have those hookup wires crossing the extraneous field.
A modification of the disk design can avoid this.
Salmon Egg
<fd598ce8-9d2e-41fa...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> In Faraday Generator, if the magnet is stationary and the disk rotates
> you get an output.
> Theory: Charges in moving disk move relative to fixed magnetic field
> producing voltage. Connecting wires do not move with respect to magnet
> so no induction there. You see a voltage output.
With my new understanding, I realize that a conductive disk is not
necessary. The conduction just makes measurement easier. At any point on
a rotating insulating disk, there will still be an E field generated by
the motion even though no current flows. The E field is a consequence of
special relativity.
The electric field will lead to polarization of real atoms and
molecules. I would expect it to be very difficult to measure that field
using the Stark effect or anything similar.
Bill
Benj
> This is because we have those hookup wires crossing the extraneous field.
> A modification of the disk design can avoid this.
This is exactly the problem! You THINK you can, but the more you try
things the more you realize you can't! In fact, trying to do this has
led some researches to formulate a "law" that says if you have a
closed loop you can't tell if the field rotates or not.
phil-new...@ipal.net
Then consider the modification. Note that the modification _depends_ on the
magnets being rotated with the disk. So it isn't something that can test
whether the case with stationary magnets will work. But it can test of the
magnets that rotate with the disk will work.
The modification keeps the magnets and the closed loop always in an alignment
with the disk rotation to generate any potential in the same direction around
the closed loop. Where the loop runs from inside to outside, the magnets are
oriented one way. Where the loop runs from outside to inside, the magnets
are oriented the other way.
phil-new...@ipal.net
The conductivity makes it easier to extract power, too (for cases where there
really is a potential generated).
Christoph Kobe
> you get an output.
> Theory: Charges in moving disk move relative to fixed magnetic field
> producing voltage. Connecting wires do not move with respect to magnet
> so no induction there. You see a voltage output.
>
>
>
> If Magnet is ATTACHED to disk and both spun (Classic "N" machine). Get
> output!
> Theory: If magnetic field is assumed to not rotate with magnet then we
> have in essence the same situation as above.
>
> Theory II: If the magnetic field is assume to rotate with magnet
> (bristle theory) then since magnet and disk rotate together there is
> no voltage induced in the disk. But magnet field is moving with
> respect to hook-up wires and the voltage is induced in THEM!
>
>
>
> If Magnet is spun but disk and wires stationary! No voltage.
> Theory: If magnetic field does NOT rotate with magnet, then there is
> no relative motion with respect to EITHER disk or hook-up wires so
> there is no output.
>
> Theory II: If magnetic field DOES rotate with magnet now there is a
> voltage induced in the disk and one in the hook-up wires. They are
> equal and opposite and CANCEL! Hence no output!
>
> Basically you end up with no definitive answers using these
> variations.
Ok, I've done some experiments and my answer is:
The field DOES rotate with the magnet.
I have 'simply' removed the field from the hook-up wires. When there is only a field in the disc, you can tell wheather the magnetic field is moving or not.
Hint: Try to find out how the magnetic field can be removed from the hook-up-wires. This led me to an interesting machine: A brushless DC-Motor and Generator!
Christoph
Terry L Hewett Sr
"Christoph Kobe" <chri...@kobenetz.de> wrote in message
news:20080814015704.c...@kobenetz.de...
>
> Ok, I've done some experiments and my answer is:
> The field DOES rotate with the magnet.
>
> I have 'simply' removed the field from the hook-up wires. When there is
> only a field in the disc, you can tell wheather the magnetic field is
> moving or not.
>
> Hint: Try to find out how the magnetic field can be removed from the
> hook-up-wires. This led me to an interesting machine: A brushless DC-Motor
> and Generator!
>
> Christoph
I've did some experiments as well. (smiling)
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html
this would be the way of removing the field along wires. forget faradays
disk. This mechanism is the next generation faradays disc like it or not.
still dependent on faradays principles. I the inventor am sure that had
faraday continued he would have invented this himself.
Christoph Kobe
So what do you want to tell me by showing these pictures? I don't see any connection between Faradays disc and your strange magnet-whatever. What is it supposed to do?
Benj
> I have 'simply' removed the field from the hook-up wires. When there is only a field in the disc, you can tell wheather the magnetic field is moving or not.
>
> Hint: Try to find out how the magnetic field can be removed from the hook-up-wires. This led me to an interesting machine: A brushless DC-Motor and Generator!
I would certainly like to know how to remove the field from hook-up
wires! I discussed this here before asking about superconductive
shielding and the like and nobody seemed to have any definitive
solutions nor could anyone say the field was "removed" as opposed to
simply canceled by an equal but opposite field which is not the same
thing as shielding and leaves the question of moving fields still
open.
Christoph Kobe
You need nothing special, just a little bit of iron (I used steel) or any other material that will concentrate the magnetic flux (µr >> 1).
If you have the N-machine with a metal dics and a magnet on each side of the disc, just put a U-shaped piece of iron (or whatever has µr >> 1) around the whole thing.
Like this:
IIIIIII
II I
IIMDMII
IIMDMII
--------- axis
IIMDMII
IIMDMII
M=Magnet
D=Metal dics
I=Iron
This way the magnetic field outside the discs can be concentrated in the iron, so that the hook-up wires can be put where no magnetic field is. In this configuration, you can spin the magnet but not the disc and have a voltage induced which proves that the field rotates with the magnet.
Christoph
Benj
> If you have the N-machine with a metal dics and a magnet on each side of the disc, just put a U-shaped piece of iron (or whatever has µr >> 1) around the whole thing.
>
> Like this:
>
> IIIIIII
> II I
> IIMDMII
> IIMDMII
> --------- axis
> IIMDMII
> IIMDMII
>
> M=Magnet
> D=Metal dics
> I=Iron
Yeah, I've got one like this. For more information on action of Iron
"shielding" see the "Hooper demonstrator" in patent 3,656,013.
> This way the magnetic field outside the discs can be concentrated in the iron, so that the hook-up wires can be put where no magnetic field is. In this configuration, you can spin the magnet but not the disc and have a voltage induced which proves that the field rotates with the magnet.
I suggest that this does not prove the field rotates with the magnet.
Instead of thinking of iron as "concentrating" the flux, think of it
as generating a secondary magnetic field which cancels the original
field outside the iron and creates more field within it. Consider that
this secondary field is attached to the iron. So the final device has
the following set up. You can assume a field is attached to the
magnets and moves with them. And that means an equal but opposite
canceling field is attached to the iron and moving with that. Both
fields extend out into the hook-up wires even though they cancel and
there appears to be no field there. The catch is that each of these
cancelling fields can be moved independently of the other. Thus, each
is capable of inducing emf in the wires via their motion. This
explains the observed actions.
However, I think it ALSO turns out that if you assume the fields are
NOT attached to the magnets or the iron that you still get the same
results. Bottom line is that the question of "attached magnetic
fields" is still unresolved.
Christoph Kobe
I don't agree with you that there is a second field generated in the iron. Why should it be there?
It's like electricity: A field (more precisely the magnetic flux) is like a current, iron and air are like resistors. Both are in parallel, so (most of) the magnetic flux takes the easier way through the smaller resistor, which is the iron.
> However, I think it ALSO turns out that if you assume the fields are
> NOT attached to the magnets or the iron that you still get the same
> results. Bottom line is that the question of "attached magnetic
> fields" is still unresolved.
Well, I have done a second experiment with a rotating magnet and it did not work. No voltage was induced, so I can't confirm the field is rotating with the magnet. This is still interesting. Now I have to figure out the difference between the two experiments ...
Terry L Hewett Sr
> I don't agree with you that there is a second field generated in the iron.
> Why should it be there?
The iron is not only conductive it is a ferrite. It will induce the field
from the wire through conductive properties carried by the field. This is a
simple experiment wind a coil around a 1/2 inch bolt apply voltage. see if
you don't see a second field generated by the bolt. The same would be true
if you wound the coil inside of a iron pipe, however it is more efficient to
have the iron core within the coil.
Christoph Kobe
"Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, the comparision (winding a wire around bolt) is really bad, because
1. The winding is not around a ferrit, it's only in a part of it. That would
be drilling a hole through the bolt, putting the coil through that hole and only
around half of the bolt. The flux would be 'shortened' by the other half of the
bolt, thus not generating a field outside the bolt.
2. In this case there is only one winding and one winding is by far not
enough to cancel the other magnetic field (unless you put more than 10000 A through it ...).
4. We're only talking about voltage induction. No current yet. No current means, no additional
magnetic field generated.
Conclusion: Theory that there is a sencond opposing field generated is wrong.
blackhead
>
> > "Christoph Kobe" <christ...@kobenetz.de> wrote in message
When a field is applied to iron, it has the effect of aligning the
domains - tiny bar magnets - within it so that they collectively add
to the applied field. The effect is to intensify the total magnetic
field within the iron, but decrease it external to the iron.
Get a U magnet and add small bar magnets between the ends. The fields
of the U magnet and that of the bar magnets add to give little
external field but an intense field within the bar magnets.
phil-new...@ipal.net
It might be possible to understand what you did if you had more detail, and
had pictures that associated the different parts together. But you label this
as a transformer. What problem with transformers is this solving?
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g8cke...@news4.newsguy.com...
> | I've did some experiments as well. (smiling)
> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg
> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpg
> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html
> |
> | this would be the way of removing the field along wires. forget faradays
> | disk. This mechanism is the next generation faradays disc like it or
> not.
> | still dependent on faradays principles. I the inventor am sure that had
> | faraday continued he would have invented this himself.
>
> It might be possible to understand what you did if you had more detail,
> and
> had pictures that associated the different parts together. But you label
> this
> as a transformer. What problem with transformers is this solving?
>
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/CentipedalDrive.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/fluxlines.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/fluxlines4.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6spoolcoilplacementsm.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6spooldblslicesm.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/1Cutaway.gif
In general transformers transform energy to do work. be it stepping up/down
voltages or actually moving mass. If you havn't noticed transformations are
limited to sets of one transformation. Example: fuel to kinetic for the
work. fuel gets used up in the transformation transformation stops. End
game. I'm sorry i cannot accept that.
Here's a unique concept lets uphold the laws of thermodynamics.
The resolution is to transform energy cyclic in sets that compliment
eachother effectively closing the system. the SRTT set is "elec to kinetic
to elec". Via electromotive force the toroid armature is spun thus kinetic
energy and it's multiple by-products. the work is used to further transform
the energy back to elec via electromagnetic induction. (the medium to drive
multiple changing magnetic flux fields through several induction coils
cyclic.)
Invention is the marriage of mechanics and the sciences With
innovations in both fields.
Terry
blackhead
wrote:
> <phil-news-nos...@ipal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:g8cke...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:26:56 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
> > <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > | I've did some experiments as well. (smiling)
> > |http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
> > |http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg
> > |http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpg
> > |http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
> > |http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html
> > |
> > | this would be the way of removing the field along wires. forget faradays
> > | disk. This mechanism is the next generation faradays disc like it or
> > not.
> > | still dependent on faradays principles. I the inventor am sure that had
> > | faraday continued he would have invented this himself.
>
> > It might be possible to understand what you did if you had more detail,
> > and
> > had pictures that associated the different parts together. But you label
> > this
> > as a transformer. What problem with transformers is this solving?
>
>
> In general transformers transform energy to do work. be it stepping up/down
> voltages or actually moving mass. If you havn't noticed transformations are
> limited to sets of one transformation. Example: fuel to kinetic for the
> work. fuel gets used up in the transformation transformation stops. End
> game. I'm sorry i cannot accept that.
>
> Here's a unique concept lets uphold the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> The resolution is to transform energy cyclic in sets that compliment
> eachother effectively closing the system. the SRTT set is "elec to kinetic
> to elec". Via electromotive force the toroid armature is spun thus kinetic
> energy and it's multiple by-products. the work is used to further transform
> the energy back to elec via electromagnetic induction. (the medium to drive
> multiple changing magnetic flux fields through several induction coils
> cyclic.)
>
> Invention is the marriage of mechanics and the sciences With
> innovations in both fields.
But what does your "invention" do?
> Terry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Terry L Hewett Sr
"blackhead" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:318d970f-567d-47fc...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It is essentially a dynamo that is self contained, a stand alone source of
energy. Faradays induction run amuk. generates electricity in the form of DC
with the potential to generate a design spacific voltage for extremely long
times probably beyond centuries. NO JOKE!
Salmon Egg
"Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In general transformers transform energy to do work. be it stepping up/down
> voltages or actually moving mass. If you havn't noticed transformations are
> limited to sets of one transformation. Example: fuel to kinetic for the
> work. fuel gets used up in the transformation transformation stops. End
> game. I'm sorry i cannot accept that.
A much better way of looking at a transformer is as an impedance
transformer. Think of it as an ac lever or gear box. A transformer does
not transform energy.
Bill
blackhead
wrote:
> "blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>
> > In general transformers transform energy to do work. be it stepping
> > up/down
> > voltages or actually moving mass. If you havn't noticed transformations
> > are
> > limited to sets of one transformation. Example: fuel to kinetic for the
> > work. fuel gets used up in the transformation transformation stops. End
> > game. I'm sorry i cannot accept that.
>
> > Here's a unique concept lets uphold the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> > The resolution is to transform energy cyclic in sets that compliment
> > eachother effectively closing the system. the SRTT set is "elec to kinetic
> > to elec". Via electromotive force the toroid armature is spun thus kinetic
> > energy and it's multiple by-products. the work is used to further
> > transform
> > the energy back to elec via electromagnetic induction. (the medium to
> > drive
> > multiple changing magnetic flux fields through several induction coils
> > cyclic.)
>
> > Invention is the marriage of mechanics and the sciences With
> > innovations in both fields.
>
> But what does your "invention" do?
>
> It is essentially a dynamo that is self contained, a stand alone source of
> energy.
Which a dynamo is already.
Faradays induction run amuk. generates electricity in the form of DC
> with the potential to generate a design spacific voltage for extremely long
> times probably beyond centuries. NO JOKE!
A standard alternator in a car does this already with diodes and a
voltage regulator cheaply. I seriously doubt whether you really have
something which hasn't been thought of before. But it would be
interesting if you could show us a diagram of it, rather than
incoherent pictures.
>
>
> > Terry- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Terry L Hewett Sr
> A standard alternator in a car does this already with diodes and a
> voltage regulator cheaply.
yeah but is it stand alone? Isn't it wonderful how simple components combine
to transform energy. alternator's set is kinetic to elec for the work of
keeping the battery charged.
> I seriously doubt whether you really have
> something which hasn't been thought of before.
Well it has been thought of before. gramme ring. However it got very little
noteriety and probably just as much research. Gramme's other works took
center stage and still are used in todays technology.
> But it would be
> interesting if you could show us a diagram of it, rather than
> incoherent pictures.
>
>
It's not a complicated mechanism in design or function.
this is what a diagram for the SRTT looks like
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
>>
>>
>> > Terry
Terry L Hewett Sr
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-9182F...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
Energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be transformed. You have
to understand that energy has many forms or manifestations. The biological
happenings in your body is a transformation of energy. a plant transforms
energy which we modeled the solar cell after. electronics transform energy.
in short most things transform energy in one way or another.
Salmon Egg
"Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be transformed. You have
> to understand that energy has many forms or manifestations. The biological
> happenings in your body is a transformation of energy. a plant transforms
> energy which we modeled the solar cell after. electronics transform energy.
> in short most things transform energy in one way or another.
I think that you mean "converted" rather than "transformed." If you look
at a transformer as a black box, the input is electrical energy and the
output is also electrical energy. Output is equal to the input less any
losses from convert=sion of electrical energy into heat energy. In the
process, entropy is increased. What is "transformed" is the impedance
level of the electrical energy.
Think of force being analogous to voltage with displacement distance
being analogous to current. That is why a transformer is the electrical
equivalent of a lever.
Bill
Terry L Hewett Sr
Agreed on the lever thing. That would make the fulcrum of this lever the
flux?
I do mean transformer spacifically in reference to my invention SRTT. For
the better part it was designed for the sole purpose of transforming energy
from elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec cyclic
for infinity or until acted upon by a outside source. It is a closed system
of transformations. However i suspect that closed is used as a loose term.
componants needing the elec produced such as independent circuitry are
simply induced into the system and welcomed as part of the system.
Salmon Egg
"Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > Think of force being analogous to voltage with displacement distance
> > being analogous to current. That is why a transformer is the electrical
> > equivalent of a lever.
> >
> > Bill
I really should have used "rate of change of displacement" as the analog
of current. That is, mechanical impedance is force divided by velocity.
Levers and gear boxes are mechanical impedance transformers just as
electrical transformers are electrical impedance transformers.
>
> Agreed on the lever thing. That would make the fulcrum of this lever the
> flux?
Why is a fulcrum necessary? If you must have one for an electrical
transformer, think of a core.
> I do mean transformer spacifically in reference to my invention SRTT. For
> the better part it was designed for the sole purpose of transforming energy
> from elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec cyclic
> for infinity or until acted upon by a outside source. It is a closed system
> of transformations. However i suspect that closed is used as a loose term.
> componants needing the elec produced such as independent circuitry are
> simply induced into the system and welcomed as part of the system.
"Transformer" can be too ambiguous a term because of its many meanings
as "comverter can be.
Bill
Terry L Hewett Sr
> In article <g8im5p$nna$1...@news.netins.net>,
> "Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > Think of force being analogous to voltage with displacement distance
>> > being analogous to current. That is why a transformer is the electrical
>> > equivalent of a lever.
>> >
>> > Bill
> I really should have used "rate of change of displacement" as the analog
> of current. That is, mechanical impedance is force divided by velocity.
> Levers and gear boxes are mechanical impedance transformers just as
> electrical transformers are electrical impedance transformers.
>
Agreed
>>
>> Agreed on the lever thing. That would make the fulcrum of this lever the
>> flux?
>
> Why is a fulcrum necessary? If you must have one for an electrical
> transformer, think of a core.
A lever must have a fulcrum to be a lever. I'm going to stick with my first
assumption of flux. the core is more the lever than the fulcrum.
>
>> I do mean transformer spacifically in reference to my invention SRTT. For
>> the better part it was designed for the sole purpose of transforming
>> energy
>> from elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec cyclic
>> for infinity or until acted upon by a outside source. It is a closed
>> system
>> of transformations. However i suspect that closed is used as a loose
>> term.
>> componants needing the elec produced such as independent circuitry are
>> simply induced into the system and welcomed as part of the system.
>
> "Transformer" can be too ambiguous a term because of its many meanings
> as "comverter can be.
>
> Bill
Understood. however there are few differences between transform and convert.
Terminology is the only real difference other than what the identity is of
what is bieng transformed or converted.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| A lever must have a fulcrum to be a lever. I'm going to stick with my first
| assumption of flux. the core is more the lever than the fulcrum.
Consider a hydraulic lift. Where's the fulcrum?
The need for a fulcrum is merely an effect of a particular mechanical model.
The flux is a part of electromagnetism. If you have one you have the other
everywhere.
So dismiss the idea of trying to find a fulcrum. It's nothing more than a
reference point of an asymmetric system.
I'm still wondering what your invention does for me that a transformer cannot
besides having moving parts that would fail within a decade of continuous use.
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g8khb...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:46:15 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> | A lever must have a fulcrum to be a lever. I'm going to stick with my
> first
> | assumption of flux. the core is more the lever than the fulcrum.
>
> Consider a hydraulic lift. Where's the fulcrum?
hydraulic pump via torsion.
>
> The need for a fulcrum is merely an effect of a particular mechanical
> model.
> The flux is a part of electromagnetism. If you have one you have the
> other
> everywhere.
every mechanical model manmade and naturally occuring share this fulcrum. to
truly see it's importance is to fully understand it's role within the
mechanism. it is the one relative thing to everything.
I say 9p temple 1 is a transformer transforming energies between mars and
jupiter as a natural mechanism. The whole point is that just because we
don't see the apparent effects doesn't ignore the fact that it takes place
with or without our understanding of it. Were like a bird on a wire.
>
> So dismiss the idea of trying to find a fulcrum. It's nothing more than a
> reference point of an asymmetric system.
>
> I'm still wondering what your invention does for me that a transformer
> cannot
> besides having moving parts that would fail within a decade of continuous
> use.
>
Well hows freeing you from the grid sound? Freeing you from a costly fuel
habit. eliminate the need for batteries. Imagine a world where everything is
self powered. Do you understand what this technology can do for space
exploration? just in the capacity of supplying a pre determined voltage for
potentially centuries. space travel could be a reality within your expectant
decade of use. You got to love the byproducts of spinning mass and their
apparent link to stabilization in space.
As for science physics my mechanism is "the model" I predict centuries of
formulation to describe what I refer to as a simple mechanism. All physics
will benifit from this knowledge. Many theories will be better understood as
absolute. SR and GR are two different accounts of the same thing. There are
more to be discovered given the multifarious nature of natural physics and
the proper model as example. Space and time are ultimately relative to
eachother given the proper model. wave harmonics and frequency of change are
same relative through the natural sine in short everything is relative
through the radius of the natural sine.
Salmon Egg
resolve whatever the nonsense is by asking simple questions.
1. What is meant by a moving magnetic field?
2. What is at least one experiment than can be performed at least in
principle, that would distinguish a moving magnetic field from one does
not move?
I believe that this thread arose by considering a long right circular
cylindrical magnet is rotated about its long axis. It is assumed that
the magnet is circularly symmetric and uniformly magnetized along it
length. f the magnetic field is given by B = f(r,z) in cylindrical
coordinates that is independent of the angle of rotation, what possible
change can be observed after rotation about the axis by an angle phi?
Bill
Benj
> I have been watching this nonsense thread fir a while. I would like to
> resolve whatever the nonsense is by asking simple questions.
>
> 1. What is meant by a moving magnetic field?
It means that the magnetic field moves with the magnet. This would
mean for example that if you rotate a magnet there would appear qVxB
forces out in the field areas because of the relative velocity of the
field with respect to a non-moving charge placed there. The idea of a
moving field is called "bristle theory" because the field lines are
thought to rotate with the magnet as do the bristles of a rotating
bottle brush.
> 2. What is at least one experiment than can be performed at least in
> principle, that would distinguish a moving magnetic field from one does
> not move?
First let me tell of a couple of "classic" experiments that do NOT
distinguish whether a magnetic field moves with the magnet. In fact
these experiments are the ones that started the whole question. You
start with a Faraday generator. It produces a voltage as the disk
turns. The magnet is stationary and the disk presumably generates qVxB
emfs from it's relative velocity with respect to that non-moving
field.
Next you glue the magnets to the disk! Now the disk AND the magnets
rotate. You find you STILL get a voltage! This led to an assumption
that while the magnet is rotating the field from it does not so the
field still fixed in space and the operation of the device is really
unchanged from the previous case. But then someone pointed out that
you ALSO get an emf if you assume the field DOES rotate with the
magnet. In that assumption there is no relative motion between the
disk and magnet so that emf is zero, but there is relative motion
between the magnet and the loop of hook up wire that connects to the
brushes. So that one could say the emf is the result of the motion
relative to the rest of the circuit.
Finally, we rotate ONLY the magnet. We get no voltage. Again if we
assume the field does not rotate, then nothing is moving relative to
anything else and no emf appears. But if we assume the field DOES
rotate, now we see that there is relative motion between magnet and
disk and ALSO relative motion between the magnetic field and the
wiring loops. They cancel each other and hence produce no net
voltage.
So the question then is how does one resolve this dilemma? It is
pretty clear that so long as you are trying to measure the moving
field using a wire loop you are doomed to fail for all the above
reasons. Therefore people have proposed definitive experiments that DO
NOT use a loop of wire (circuit) to measure qVxB forces. One would
involve electron beam in the supposed spinning field and another
divides the Faraday disk into rings with insulation between them. When
the magnet is spinning (supposedly inducing emf in the disk) one
shorts the rings so the rings acts like a normal disk. Then one un-
shorts the rings, stops the magnet and measures the voltage on the
disk stored in the capacitance of the rings to one another. If there
ever was an emf induced there, at least part of it will be left on the
rings. So the electrostatic measurement shows that if there is any emf
at all remaining the magnetic field rotates with the magnet. If there
is zero emf then it can be said that the magnetic field stays
stationary in space as the magnet rotates.
If you include iron magnetic circuits the situation gets more complex
but the basic ideas remain unchanged.
That pretty much is the summary of the issue. There are actually quite
a few papers out there hashing around on these issues. So far I've not
heard of anyone doing the definitive electrostatic measurement.
OK?
> I believe that this thread arose by considering a long right circular
> cylindrical magnet is rotated about its long axis. It is assumed that
> the magnet is circularly symmetric and uniformly magnetized along it
> length. f the magnetic field is given by B = f(r,z) in cylindrical
> coordinates that is independent of the angle of rotation, what possible
> change can be observed after rotation about the axis by an angle phi?
qVxB forces obviously. One argument that a magnetic field travels
with an electron is that if you have two electrons traveling along
parallel at identical velocities we know that if we have this in two
wires there are forces between the wires. The idea is that the current
in one wire creates a magnetic field at the second wire and vice versa
creating qVxB forces between the wires. But for two free electrons
there can be no forces. Because if one takes a reference frame
attached to the moving electrons the two charges appear stationary
with respect to each other. Thus no forces can appear in that
reference frame. From this people have concluded that a magnetic
field must move with the electron. That conclusion makes it a small
step to surmise that a magnetic field might move with a magnet.
phil-new...@ipal.net
|
| <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:g8khb...@news3.newsguy.com...
|> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:46:15 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
|> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>
|> | A lever must have a fulcrum to be a lever. I'm going to stick with my
|> first
|> | assumption of flux. the core is more the lever than the fulcrum.
|>
|> Consider a hydraulic lift. Where's the fulcrum?
|
| hydraulic pump via torsion.
That's not a fulcrum. It is a different device.
|> The need for a fulcrum is merely an effect of a particular mechanical
|> model.
|> The flux is a part of electromagnetism. If you have one you have the
|> other
|> everywhere.
|
| every mechanical model manmade and naturally occuring share this fulcrum. to
| truly see it's importance is to fully understand it's role within the
| mechanism. it is the one relative thing to everything.
Of course there is something relative. I would not consider the pump to
be that in the case of the hydraulic lift. The pump is the primary power
source. The "relative object" is the point where there is a change in
the relationship of distance of movement and force.
| I say 9p temple 1 is a transformer transforming energies between mars and
| jupiter as a natural mechanism. The whole point is that just because we
| don't see the apparent effects doesn't ignore the fact that it takes place
| with or without our understanding of it. Were like a bird on a wire.
The flux in a transformer is another form of power/energy. The flux exists
outside the transformer, as well. The wires leading to, and from, also have
the flux. The core enhances the flux, but it can still be a transformer
even without the core. My point is, the transformer is transforming the flux.
It is not a case of flux being a reference thing.
The windings themselves are the closest thing you have to a reference point
in a transformer.
|> So dismiss the idea of trying to find a fulcrum. It's nothing more than a
|> reference point of an asymmetric system.
|>
|> I'm still wondering what your invention does for me that a transformer
|> cannot
|> besides having moving parts that would fail within a decade of continuous
|> use.
|>
|
| Well hows freeing you from the grid sound? Freeing you from a costly fuel
| habit. eliminate the need for batteries. Imagine a world where everything is
| self powered. Do you understand what this technology can do for space
| exploration? just in the capacity of supplying a pre determined voltage for
| potentially centuries. space travel could be a reality within your expectant
| decade of use. You got to love the byproducts of spinning mass and their
| apparent link to stabilization in space.
Are you saying this technology makes energy from nothing? If so, I want to
see some proof. That _may_ be in the form of construction details clear
enough to actually construct it. What your web page showed is far from it.
Alternatively, show me all the materials used to construct it so I can see
that no energy storage device (battery, for example, or fuel) is involved,
and no otherwise consumable material is involved (unless it's as cheap as
dirt and doesn't require a lot). Then construct it in isolation that prevents
access to any other material or parts (if you want to hide from me how it is
built). Then show me how much power it produces, and lets run it for a month
and see how much energy it can produce.
Otherwise, such a claim gets classified as the quackery it seems to be.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| So the question then is how does one resolve this dilemma? It is
| pretty clear that so long as you are trying to measure the moving
| field using a wire loop you are doomed to fail for all the above
| reasons. Therefore people have proposed definitive experiments that DO
| NOT use a loop of wire (circuit) to measure qVxB forces. One would
| involve electron beam in the supposed spinning field and another
| divides the Faraday disk into rings with insulation between them. When
| the magnet is spinning (supposedly inducing emf in the disk) one
| shorts the rings so the rings acts like a normal disk. Then one un-
| shorts the rings, stops the magnet and measures the voltage on the
| disk stored in the capacitance of the rings to one another. If there
| ever was an emf induced there, at least part of it will be left on the
| rings. So the electrostatic measurement shows that if there is any emf
| at all remaining the magnetic field rotates with the magnet. If there
| is zero emf then it can be said that the magnetic field stays
| stationary in space as the magnet rotates.
Have you not considered the constructions I have suggested in past
threads as a means to determine this? These _do_ include loops.
In one of them, the loop even runs off the disk (but there are more
loops of wire on the disk than off). The rest are simple tests that
have the loop entirely on the disk.
Salmon Egg
<bc670dc3-dfdc-4ada...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 12:39 am, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I have been watching this nonsense thread fir a while. I would like to
> > resolve whatever the nonsense is by asking simple questions.
> >
> > 1. What is meant by a moving magnetic field?
>
> It means that the magnetic field moves with the magnet. This would
> mean for example that if you rotate a magnet there would appear qVxB
> forces out in the field areas because of the relative velocity of the
> field with respect to a non-moving charge placed there. The idea of a
> moving field is called "bristle theory" because the field lines are
> thought to rotate with the magnet as do the bristles of a rotating
> bottle brush.
This purported rotation is what I call nonsense.
Why even bother with rotating a magnet other than to confuse the effects
of special relativity (SR) because it is usually described in terms of
uniformly translating coordinate systems.
>
> > 2. What is at least one experiment than can be performed at least in
> > principle, that would distinguish a moving magnetic field from one does
> > not move?
>
> First let me tell of a couple of "classic" experiments that do NOT
> distinguish whether a magnetic field moves with the magnet. In fact
> these experiments are the ones that started the whole question. You
> start with a Faraday generator. It produces a voltage as the disk
> turns. The magnet is stationary and the disk presumably generates qVxB
> emfs from it's relative velocity with respect to that non-moving
> field.
I buy that. That result also MUST follow from SR even if one does not
know anything about F = qVxB.
>
> Next you glue the magnets to the disk! Now the disk AND the magnets
> rotate. You find you STILL get a voltage! This led to an assumption
> that while the magnet is rotating the field from it does not so the
> field still fixed in space and the operation of the device is really
> unchanged from the previous case. But then someone pointed out that
> you ALSO get an emf if you assume the field DOES rotate with the
> magnet. In that assumption there is no relative motion between the
> disk and magnet so that emf is zero, but there is relative motion
> between the magnet and the loop of hook up wire that connects to the
> brushes. So that one could say the emf is the result of the motion
> relative to the rest of the circuit.
But if something is changing, it certainly is not the B field. If B is
the same after a small rotation of the magnet, there was no change.
In dealing with this topic, which I consider to be well settled against
the rotating lines of force, I thought of an experiment that might
actually work. That is, it does not have to be a totally "gedanken"
experiment.
It is well known that low speed electrons and other charged particles
will spiral around lines of force. IIRC, auroras and whistlers are
affected this way by the Earth's magnetic field. This following of flux
lies prevents harmful exposure of life on Earth from charged particles
emitted by the sun.
An electronic device was built over 50 years ago that enabled
visualization of magnetic field. In a gassy vacuum, particles spiraling
around a field line would cause a glow. I do not remember very well just
how individual streams of particles were constrained. I would guess that
it was some kind of mask that controlled just where particles entered
the active region.
In any event, if such a device were put in the magnetic field of a high
speed rotating magnet, it should be possible to observe whether the glow
travels along a field line or whether it travel along a line locked
rigidly to the magnet.
Bill
Benj
>
> This purported rotation is what I call nonsense.
If it's "nonsense" then show us the data!
> Why even bother with rotating a magnet other than to confuse the effects
> of special relativity (SR) because it is usually described in terms of
> uniformly translating coordinate systems.
I presume the reasons are historical having to do with how the
question arose in the first place. I don't think people chose it to
obscure the effects of SR.
> I buy that. That result also MUST follow from SR even if one does not
> know anything about F = qVxB.
Yes.
> But if something is changing, it certainly is not the B field. If B is
> the same after a small rotation of the magnet, there was no change.
Proof by assertion? This is the question we are trying to prove one
way or the other!
> In dealing with this topic, which I consider to be well settled against
> the rotating lines of force, I thought of an experiment that might
> actually work. That is, it does not have to be a totally "gedanken"
> experiment.
If this is "well settled" then I find it interesting there are lots of
papers arguing this in the literature, especially the teaching and
educational literature such as AJP.
> It is well known that low speed electrons and other charged particles
> will spiral around lines of force. IIRC, auroras and whistlers are
> affected this way by the Earth's magnetic field. This following of flux
> lies prevents harmful exposure of life on Earth from charged particles
> emitted by the sun.
Yes.
> An electronic device was built over 50 years ago that enabled
> visualization of magnetic field. In a gassy vacuum, particles spiraling
> around a field line would cause a glow. I do not remember very well just
> how individual streams of particles were constrained. I would guess that
> it was some kind of mask that controlled just where particles entered
> the active region.
>
> In any event, if such a device were put in the magnetic field of a high
> speed rotating magnet, it should be possible to observe whether the glow
> travels along a field line or whether it travel along a line locked
> rigidly to the magnet.
I suppose that is a way. The point is that trying to prove this with
current loops ends up with a paradox. You have to step outside of that
with electrostatic measurements of some kind. I'm thinking about
electrons spiraling along flux lines. In particular the focus coil of
a vidicon tube. The question would be what happens if you rotate that
coil? If you rotate the coil do the electrons rotate with the flux
lines? Of course the problem is made worse with the fact that
electrons traverse the flux line very rapidly and even if it moved,
there'd be new electrons entering the source end all the time so any
slow rotation probably would likely not be visible.
I sort of like the "ring-disk" thing because although this would
likely require a sensitivity way beyond the galvanometers etc. of the
early days, modern electronic electrometers should make quick work of
this question!
Don Kelly
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g8nba...@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:42:37 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> |
> | <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:g8khb...@news3.newsguy.com...
> |> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:46:15 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
> |> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
------------snip----------
------------
lol: I gave up on Terry some time ago- lots of handwaving but nothing more.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
maxwell
> Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> the same?
>
> --
> |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
> | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
> | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
Would anyone like to propose an objective (or even philosophical)
definition of 'existence' before generating semantic-free questions
about magnetic 'fields'?
Salmon Egg
<af0e98eb-ccbf-450b...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> I suppose that is a way. The point is that trying to prove this with
> current loops ends up with a paradox. You have to step outside of that
> with electrostatic measurements of some kind. I'm thinking about
> electrons spiraling along flux lines. In particular the focus coil of
> a vidicon tube. The question would be what happens if you rotate that
> coil? If you rotate the coil do the electrons rotate with the flux
> lines? Of course the problem is made worse with the fact that
> electrons traverse the flux line very rapidly and even if it moved,
> there'd be new electrons entering the source end all the time so any
> slow rotation probably would likely not be visible.
>
> I sort of like the "ring-disk" thing because although this would
> likely require a sensitivity way beyond the galvanometers etc. of the
> early days, modern electronic electrometers should make quick work of
> this question!
I have been thinking of other possible experiments. The more I think
about it, the more I think about it, the more I think that the magnetic
field does not rotate. Nevertheless, because of the emotional appeal of
the rotating field concept, a sensitive method for detecting it that
does not, would be a good thing to try.
Consider a compass needle set in a cork floating in a shallow pool of
water in a Petri dish. Underneath, a very symmetrical cylindrical bar
magnet is mounted vertically and spun about its own axis. Can spin be
imparted to the compass needle? A complication may arise from one end of
the needle getting attracted while the other end is repelled by the bar
magnet. That probably can be adjusted out with counterweights and cork
float shape to keep flotational stability.
Another approach would be to hang horizontal disks from a vertical fiber
to form a torsional pendulum. Angular deflection can be used to measure
tiny torques.
Using both magnetic and conductive nonmagnetic disks, torques can be
measured. Compare torque with a vertical bar magnet spinning on its axis
to a horizontal ba magnet spinning on a vertical axis. Plastic disks can
be used as controls to make sure that windage and other effects do not
mask the magnetic effects.
Maybe floating a copper disk on a cork tp detect eddy current torque
might be the most convincing.
Again, I believe these experiments will give null results. But like with
Laetrile, sometimes the political pressures are so great that the
experiment needs to be carried out anyway.
Bill
Benj
> On Jul 24, 1:05 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
>
> > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> > the same?
> Would anyone like to propose an objective (or even philosophical)
> definition of 'existence' before generating semantic-free questions
> about magnetic 'fields'?
Heh. Here we go again! Lessee. Since "fields" are a mathematical
conception the Cartesian definition of "existence", namely the
philosophy of "I think, therefore I am" holds which says that if you
can conceive of anything in the mathematical sense, then it by
definition "exists". So now that we've determined that mathematical
fields are "real" we next need to find if they have any relationship
to observed physical phenomena.
There is an interesting mathematical point that several have made
here. Consider a mathematical field out the end of a cylindrical
magnet similar to the actual action found there. This mathematical
field exists over that region of space if at every point in that space
is defined a magnitude and direction. But now we assume the that the
field is uniform over that space. We now apply a small rotation to
that field. And Lo nothing changes. In fact nothing changes even if we
transform one point in space to the values of the next point in space.
Both magnitude and direction stay unchanged because the field is
uniform in that region. Get it? Every rotation of the field is a
transformation into itself! Hence as all magnitudes and directions do
not change with a rotation, we can can conclude mathematically that
the "field" simply does not rotate.
In fact one could say that any suggestion that a mathematical field
rotates is "nonsense"! Too bad this little "experiment" is only
taking place inside someone's skull. What the forces out the end of a
magnet do when the magnet is rotated is apparently quite another
question.
Didn't we answer the "are fields real" question a long time ago?
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g8nba...@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:42:37 -0500
>
Not what I'm saying at all. However i am saying that this technology uses
well known and currently applied mechanical interractions to a new mechanism
that has the potential to transform energy in a cyclic manner for a very
long time with little or no losses.
If so, I want to
> see some proof. That _may_ be in the form of construction details clear
> enough to actually construct it. What your web page showed is far from
> it.
> Alternatively, show me all the materials used to construct it so I can see
> that no energy storage device (battery, for example, or fuel) is involved,
> and no otherwise consumable material is involved (unless it's as cheap as
> dirt and doesn't require a lot).
You will NEVER remove the storage mechanism from any mechanism man made or
occuring naturally. In the case of the SRTT it is flywheel energy as a
storage mechanism. in fact the polar arrangement of the multipole toroid
armature and the multipole belt are a looped dipole arrangement. the SRTT
uses this arrangement for storage. The unnamed invention i refer to as a
mechanical trinket doesn't use this dipole arrangement for storage. It does
use a battery bank wired in such a manner that the battery bank is
essentially a low pass filter.
I wouldn't suggest that just anyone build the SRTT as i have built prototype
#6 (multipart). It is designed as a ONE PIECE toroid armature. The multipart
construction is the equivilent of a unique fragmentation device. You DON"T
have my permission to toy with this technology in any other capacity than to
contemplate it's workings. However if you take it upon yourself to actually
build a prototype of the SRTT i cannot be held responsible for loss of life
or limb.
If you want to experiment with the following technology feel free to. Just
don't forget who you got it from, I want proper noteriety and a copy of your
works. It would be in err to assume that your going to manufacture without
my express knowledge and cooperation. I feel it is safer at this point as a
multipart construction.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!mechtrinket2.jpg
I am currently building prototype #1. it will likely have a hand crank
instead of a low volt dc motor and controller. the multipart belt is a pain
trying to get the rubber spacers precisely cut uniformly. i have made a jig
for this however 1 in 10 passes my quality control.
I cannot stress enough that my inventions are *multifarious* in a multitude
of ways. Scale is a primary consideration. small is good in this particular
mechanism for it's potential application. Allthough this mechanism is using
the same multipole configuration as the SRTT it is not dependent on rigid
spinning mass to drive the multiple flux fields through the induction coils
cyclic.
> Then construct it in isolation that prevents
> access to any other material or parts (if you want to hide from me how it
> is
> built).
I'm not bieng carr here in any way. it should be pretty apparent what
materials and parts are used.
> Then show me how much power it produces, and lets run it for a month
> and see how much energy it can produce.
>
Untill i can implement design spacific componants or computer modeling the
SRTT is at a stand still in research and developement.
> Otherwise, such a claim gets classified as the quackery it seems to be.
>
> --
Bah!
Timo A. Nieminen
> I have been thinking of other possible experiments. The more I think
> about it, the more I think about it, the more I think that the magnetic
> field does not rotate. Nevertheless, because of the emotional appeal of
> the rotating field concept, a sensitive method for detecting it that
> does not, would be a good thing to try.
>
> Consider a compass needle set in a cork floating in a shallow pool of
> water in a Petri dish. Underneath, a very symmetrical cylindrical bar
> magnet is mounted vertically and spun about its own axis. Can spin be
> imparted to the compass needle?
Theoretically, no. But in practice, there will almost certainly be a small
torque. This will occur if there is any rotational inhomogeneity in the
magnet and field - do you have a perfect magnet. Also if there is any
misalignment between "magnetic axis" and rotation axis.
This means that, in the absence of an alternative theory that would allow
the experiment to test between conventional theory and it, it isn't a good
experiment. Can a small torque be claimed to be a non-null result?
I don't know if a compass needle would be the best detector - you'd need
to get rid of all stray fields first.
But some further thoughts on rotation of magnetic fields:
In my first response in this thread, I noted that there is only _one_
magnetic field, produced by all the sources that contribute. Some of the
sources can be rotating, moving, whatever. Just because _one_ source is
rotating, does it make sense to say that the field is rotating? This is
the classical picture, and in this picture of a single magnetic field, it
simply doesn't make sense to say that the field rotates (or moves).
But one can have a (non-classical) picture in which each source produces
its very own personal field. But in this case, the sources are the
individual quantum objects that carry electric charge or magnetic moments
(or electric moments). In this picture, does each particle carry its own
field along with itself?
Consider a single particle with a magnetic dipole orbiting uniformly about
an axis. This would be the case for a particle away from the axis in the
spinning magnet. This motion would produce radiation. In this picture,
with each particle carrying its own individual field, every single
particle in the magnet would radiate.
(Perhaps this might lead to a useful experimental test?)
Even in a neutral body, if the individual fields were independent, there
would be radiation. Well, we observe neutral bodies in which charged
particles are moving radiating (thermal radiation), so is there something
solid to this picture? Or is the thermal radiation due to fluctuations in
the classical field that is the superposition of the individual fields?
Which gives rise to observable physical effects - the individual fields,
or only their superposition? If only their superposition, we are back
at the classical picture.
In both picture, "magnetic field of the magnet" is only a convenient
label, and in neither picture is there a real "magnetic field of the
magnet" - in the classical picture, there is only the single field,
existing through all space, and in the quantum individual-fields picture,
there are the fields of all of the individual particles (and their
superposition).
But I am amused by people who previously argued vehemently that fields are
not real now arguing that they are physically real enough to rotate :)
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
phil-new...@ipal.net
| But if something is changing, it certainly is not the B field. If B is
| the same after a small rotation of the magnet, there was no change.
So if a segment of wire (not a loop), oriented along a vector going
outward from the axis of the (non-conductive) disk it is attached to,
is under a strong fixed magnetic field (an N54 magnet on one side
with N facing the wire, and an N54 magnet on the other side with S
facing the wire), and the disk is rotating so the wire has motion
perpendicular to both the line of the wire and the field, are you
confident this is developing an electric charge difference between
the ends of the wire?
If you believe that, I have another design for you to consider, that
does involve a loop, but where the loop is confined to the disk and
does not encounter the "off the disk" field.
Salmon Egg
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> In my first response in this thread, I noted that there is only _one_
> magnetic field, produced by all the sources that contribute. Some of the
> sources can be rotating, moving, whatever. Just because _one_ source is
> rotating, does it make sense to say that the field is rotating? This is
> the classical picture, and in this picture of a single magnetic field, it
> simply doesn't make sense to say that the field rotates (or moves).
Consider a vertically mounted cylindrical bar magnet. Rotate it by an
angle ss about its axis. I see no difference in the field after the
rotation from what it was before the rotation. For an object such as a
floating horizontal copper disk, what could be a process by which a
torque is transmitted from the magnet to the disk?
On the other hand, if the bar magnet is in the horizontal plane and
rotated about a vertical axis, my experience leads me to believe that a
torque arising from eddy currents can be detected easily.
I cannot imagine how the concept of a magnetic field, as we understood
it for more than a century can accommodate the concept of a rotating
field while the field does not change.
Bill
phil-new...@ipal.net
| <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:g8nba...@news4.newsguy.com...
|> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:42:37 -0500
|>
|> Are you saying this technology makes energy from nothing?
|
| Not what I'm saying at all. However i am saying that this technology uses
| well known and currently applied mechanical interractions to a new mechanism
| that has the potential to transform energy in a cyclic manner for a very
| long time with little or no losses.
Is there an input of energy in some form? What form?
I'm assuming the output of energy is electrical (a useful form), or one that
could easily be converted to electrical. If you can produce 100 watts of
power continuously, how many joules per seconds of energy input is this
device getting?
| You will NEVER remove the storage mechanism from any mechanism man made or
| occuring naturally. In the case of the SRTT it is flywheel energy as a
| storage mechanism. in fact the polar arrangement of the multipole toroid
| armature and the multipole belt are a looped dipole arrangement. the SRTT
| uses this arrangement for storage. The unnamed invention i refer to as a
| mechanical trinket doesn't use this dipole arrangement for storage. It does
| use a battery bank wired in such a manner that the battery bank is
| essentially a low pass filter.
So the output is not smooth DC. What is it? Pulsed DC? AC?
| I wouldn't suggest that just anyone build the SRTT as i have built prototype
| #6 (multipart). It is designed as a ONE PIECE toroid armature. The multipart
| construction is the equivilent of a unique fragmentation device. You DON"T
| have my permission to toy with this technology in any other capacity than to
| contemplate it's workings. However if you take it upon yourself to actually
| build a prototype of the SRTT i cannot be held responsible for loss of life
| or limb.
Lack of permission from you means nothing unless there is a patent. I can
accept your lack of legal liability. If I come to know how to build this
device, I believe I could determine its risk.
| If you want to experiment with the following technology feel free to. Just
| don't forget who you got it from, I want proper noteriety and a copy of your
| works. It would be in err to assume that your going to manufacture without
| my express knowledge and cooperation. I feel it is safer at this point as a
| multipart construction.
| http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!mechtrinket2.jpg
You have a patent, or have applied for one?
Why do you put ! characters in URLs or file names? Strange.
| I am currently building prototype #1. it will likely have a hand crank
| instead of a low volt dc motor and controller. the multipart belt is a pain
| trying to get the rubber spacers precisely cut uniformly. i have made a jig
| for this however 1 in 10 passes my quality control.
|
| I cannot stress enough that my inventions are *multifarious* in a multitude
| of ways. Scale is a primary consideration. small is good in this particular
| mechanism for it's potential application. Allthough this mechanism is using
| the same multipole configuration as the SRTT it is not dependent on rigid
| spinning mass to drive the multiple flux fields through the induction coils
| cyclic.
Maybe you can explain what it really does.
|> Then construct it in isolation that prevents
|> access to any other material or parts (if you want to hide from me how it
|> is
|> built).
|
| I'm not bieng carr here in any way. it should be pretty apparent what
| materials and parts are used.
Huh? I can't figure out much from the web site and photos and drawings.
For example, for all magnets, you should show the field orientation of the
magnets in a drawing, or added to a photo.
|> Then show me how much power it produces, and lets run it for a month
|> and see how much energy it can produce.
|>
|
| Untill i can implement design spacific componants or computer modeling the
| SRTT is at a stand still in research and developement.
Let me know when it works. Be sure to patent it.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| On Jul 24, 1:05?pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
|> Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
|> the same?
|>
|> --
|> |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. ?Due to ignorance |
|> | ? ? ? ? by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. ?If you post to ?|
|> | ? ? ? ? Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. ? ? ? ?|
|> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
| Would anyone like to propose an objective (or even philosophical)
| definition of 'existence' before generating semantic-free questions
| about magnetic 'fields'?
Object A is known to object B to exist, if object A can effect object B in
some way.
Don Kelly
> On 15 Aug, 00:03, Christoph Kobe <christ...@kobenetz.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:38:09 -0500
>> "Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Christoph Kobe" <christ...@kobenetz.de> wrote in message
>> >news:20080814212631.3...@kobenetz.de...
>>
>> > > I don't agree with you that there is a second field generated in the
>> > > iron.
>> > > Why should it be there?
>>
>> > The iron is not only conductive it is a ferrite. It will induce the
>> > field
>> > from the wire through conductive properties carried by the field. This
>> > is a
>> > simple experiment wind a coil around a 1/2 inch bolt apply voltage. see
>> > if
>> > you don't see a second field generated by the bolt. The same would be
>> > true
>> > if you wound the coil inside of a iron pipe, however it is more
>> > efficient to
>> > have the iron core within the coil.
>>
>> Well, the comparision (winding a wire around bolt) is really bad, because
>> 1. The winding is not around a ferrit, it's only in a part of it. That
>> would
>> be drilling a hole through the bolt, putting the coil through that hole
>> and only
>> around half of the bolt. The flux would be 'shortened' by the other half
>> of the
>> bolt, thus not generating a field outside the bolt.
>> 2. In this case there is only one winding and one winding is by far not
>> enough to cancel the other magnetic field (unless you put more than 10000
>> A through it ...).
>> 4. We're only talking about voltage induction. No current yet. No current
>> means, no additional
>> magnetic field generated.
>
>> Conclusion: Theory that there is a sencond opposing field generated is
>> wrong.
>
> When a field is applied to iron, it has the effect of aligning the
> domains - tiny bar magnets - within it so that they collectively add
> to the applied field. The effect is to intensify the total magnetic
> field within the iron, but decrease it external to the iron.
>
> Get a U magnet and add small bar magnets between the ends. The fields
> of the U magnet and that of the bar magnets add to give little
> external field but an intense field within the bar magnets.
I find your statement misleading. The field configuration will change if a
ferromagnetic material is inserted. This means that in some areas the field
is decreased but in others, not necessarily in the iron alone, it will be
greatly increased. In your example the field external to the iron will be
decreased but that is because the overall field configuration is different -
as you have a number of "good conductors" in parallel with the original
"poor conductor" of the air gap. The comparison is apples to oranges because
the two situations are quite different.
In a motor, adding iron to the magnetic circuit greatly reduces the air gap
and associated mmf so that the "gap" flux is much higher than would be
possible without the iron. Certainly "stray fields" will be reduced-that is
part of the purpose. Again, it is comparing apples to oranges because the
overall medium and its characteristics have changed.
Benj
> Consider a vertically mounted cylindrical bar magnet. Rotate it by an
> angle ss about its axis. I see no difference in the field after the
> rotation from what it was before the rotation. For an object such as a
> floating horizontal copper disk, what could be a process by which a
> torque is transmitted from the magnet to the disk?
Whether or not a rotating field makes "sense" classically, this
experiment has been done and of course the disk (or upper magnet) does
not rotate. This has been used to argue that the field does not
rotate. But you pose the correct argument which is that the upper
member does not rotate because there is no mechanism to transmit force
to it. This leaves the question of the movement of fields unanswered.
> I cannot imagine how the concept of a magnetic field, as we understood
> it for more than a century can accommodate the concept of a rotating
> field while the field does not change.
How about this. You have a charged particle sitting in free space.
Over that particle you have a uniform static magnetic field. Nothing
happens. Now you suddenly move the magnet/coil a bit to the left.
Clearly, as the field over the particle is uniform, no point in that
region of space has had the field change in either magnitude or
direction. Hence one might say the field at the particle has not
changed at all. Does the particle experience a force? Rotation should
be just a variation on the geometry of this. No?
maxwell
> On Aug 23, 2:39 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 1:05 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
>
> > > Is the magnetic field really moving if the magnets move but the field remains
> > > the same?
> > Would anyone like to propose an objective (or even philosophical)
> > definition of 'existence' before generating semantic-free questions
> > about magnetic 'fields'?
>
> Heh. Here we go again! Lessee. Since "fields" are a mathematical
> conception the Cartesian definition of "existence", namely the
> philosophy of "I think, therefore I am" holds which says that if you
> can conceive of anything in the mathematical sense, then it by
> definition "exists". So now that we've determined that mathematical
> fields are "real" we next need to find if they have any relationship
> to observed physical phenomena.
> Didn't we answer the "are fields real" question a long time ago?
summarize the conclusions?
maxwell
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:39:06 -0700 (PDT) maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> ...
> | Would anyone like to propose an objective (or even philosophical)
> | definition of 'existence' before generating semantic-free questions
> | about magnetic 'fields'?
>
> Object A is known to object B to exist, if object A can effect object B in
> some way.
>
should include humans. However in this case, we know about magnets &
charge but we don't know about mathematical intermediaries, like
fields, that are the consequence of a proposed theory; so tell me
again, why do people BELIEVE in fields?
Salmon Egg
wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:25:40 -0700 Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> | But if something is changing, it certainly is not the B field. If B is
> | the same after a small rotation of the magnet, there was no change.
>
> So if a segment of wire (not a loop), oriented along a vector going
> outward from the axis of the (non-conductive) disk it is attached to,
> is under a strong fixed magnetic field (an N54 magnet on one side
> with N facing the wire, and an N54 magnet on the other side with S
> facing the wire), and the disk is rotating so the wire has motion
> perpendicular to both the line of the wire and the field, are you
> confident this is developing an electric charge difference between
> the ends of the wire?
>
> If you believe that, I have another design for you to consider, that
> does involve a loop, but where the loop is confined to the disk and
> does not encounter the "off the disk" field.
I have great difficulty understanding the configuration you are
describing. To the extent that I understand it, a camera recording what
is happening will have an after picture that is not the same as the
before picture. The wire segment will have been displaced.
On the other hand, if you had a camera that could record the magnetic
field, the before rotation picture would be identical with the after
rotation picture. Lines of force do not come wit labels attached so that
you can keep track of them.
As a very crude analogy, think of indistinguishable electrons that lead
to Fermi-Dirac statistics.
Bill
Salmon Egg
<0ece1fae-6315-4112...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
You have merely convinced me that the "charged particle sitting in free"
space" does not have a force on it under the circumstances described.
Bill
Benj
> > Didn't we answer the "are fields real" question a long time ago?
>
> Must have missed that one. Any reference or perhaps you could
> summarize the conclusions?
You already did below. Mathematical Fields are "real" mathematical
objects in that we can conceive of them. The forces and charges etc.
at the ends of magnets etc. are "real" material objects and effects
since they produce actions in our observable space. However Magnetic
Fields are mathematical objects and thence not "real" material
objects. They are only "real" conceptual objects. Mathematical
magnetic fields are only proposed models of the "real" material forces
and objects and are not real in the material sense.
What is interesting is that conceptual operations done upon the
mathematical objects often produces other mathematical objects which
oddly enough is also found to be the result when a similar operation
is applied to the "real" material objects. In other words the actions
of the mathematical concepts mirror and predict the actions observed
with physical objects. That means the conceptual mathematical model is
an accurate one, but does not mean that the conceptual model is
somehow a "real" material object. I mean, if I have one apple and
another apple and put them in a box to give two apples I can say: 1+1
=2. But none of those numbers are anything close to actual apples.
They are abstractions that only exist in the mind. I really don't
understand the people who think that because the model works so well,
that numbers are actual apples!
Which leads to Timo's comment that if Fields aren't "real" why bother
discussing if they "rotate"? The point would be that there are
actually TWO questions here. One would be "does the mathematical
conceptual model of the "magentic field" demonstrate a property of
rotation of the "flux lines" [whatever that is defined to mean]. It's
a mathematical question answered wholly by thought and without regard
to experimental observations. The other question would be "do the
force effects produced by a magnet rotate with it?" This is a material
question that can only be answered by observation and experiment.
Once BOTH questions have been answered only THEN can one compare the
model to the physical actions to obtain an evaluation of the accuracy
of the model.
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g8qar...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:00:51 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> | <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:g8nba...@news4.newsguy.com...
> |> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:42:37 -0500
> |>
> |> Are you saying this technology makes energy from nothing?
> |
> | Not what I'm saying at all. However i am saying that this technology
> uses
> | well known and currently applied mechanical interractions to a new
> mechanism
> | that has the potential to transform energy in a cyclic manner for a very
> | long time with little or no losses.
>
> Is there an input of energy in some form? What form?
No input or output. it is a closed system. There is only induction into the
system. in short the electrical aperatus you are powering is induced into
the system and becomes a part of the closed system. Maintaining system
integrity.
With that said and should be understood that is under normal operating
conditions. There is a inital startup that would have to be from an outside
source.
>
> I'm assuming the output of energy is electrical (a useful form), or one
> that
> could easily be converted to electrical. If you can produce 100 watts of
> power continuously, how many joules per seconds of energy input is this
> device getting?
Again no input or output.
>
>
> | You will NEVER remove the storage mechanism from any mechanism man made
> or
> | occuring naturally. In the case of the SRTT it is flywheel energy as a
> | storage mechanism. in fact the polar arrangement of the multipole toroid
> | armature and the multipole belt are a looped dipole arrangement. the
> SRTT
> | uses this arrangement for storage. The unnamed invention i refer to as a
> | mechanical trinket doesn't use this dipole arrangement for storage. It
> does
> | use a battery bank wired in such a manner that the battery bank is
> | essentially a low pass filter.
>
> So the output is not smooth DC. What is it? Pulsed DC? AC?
If i were to put each internal componanent of the system in terms of input
and output both input and output are a consistant with DC.
>
>
> | I wouldn't suggest that just anyone build the SRTT as i have built
> prototype
> | #6 (multipart). It is designed as a ONE PIECE toroid armature. The
> multipart
> | construction is the equivilent of a unique fragmentation device. You
> DON"T
> | have my permission to toy with this technology in any other capacity
> than to
> | contemplate it's workings. However if you take it upon yourself to
> actually
> | build a prototype of the SRTT i cannot be held responsible for loss of
> life
> | or limb.
>
> Lack of permission from you means nothing unless there is a patent. I can
> accept your lack of legal liability. If I come to know how to build this
> device, I believe I could determine its risk.
Prepairing for the multitude of potential risks is more my worry. proper
facilities are a must.
When things go wrong they go horribly wrong post haste. think for a minute
were toying with a frictionless mechanism that has the potential to meet or
exceed any frequency of change we are aware of and probably many we don't
know of or have benchmarked per say. Design variations may bring us to this
point but for now it is not designed to approach a harmful range.
>
>
> | If you want to experiment with the following technology feel free to.
> Just
> | don't forget who you got it from, I want proper noteriety and a copy of
> your
> | works. It would be in err to assume that your going to manufacture
> without
> | my express knowledge and cooperation. I feel it is safer at this point
> as a
> | multipart construction.
> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!mechtrinket2.jpg
>
> You have a patent, or have applied for one?
>
> Why do you put ! characters in URLs or file names? Strange.
Not so strange. just a personal thing i do on occation. when considering the
thousands of images one creates or use on websites it is simpler than coding
or decoding something like this 7r90t21j65.jpg on a consistant basis when
editing websites. It is also an indicator that the person viewing the
spacific range of images is a person of interest through website statistics.
I sent out hundreds of emails with the images and text pertaining to this
and other technology of mine. it is a way of seeing if they actually viewed
the images or just discarded the email.
>
>
> | I am currently building prototype #1. it will likely have a hand crank
> | instead of a low volt dc motor and controller. the multipart belt is a
> pain
> | trying to get the rubber spacers precisely cut uniformly. i have made a
> jig
> | for this however 1 in 10 passes my quality control.
> |
> | I cannot stress enough that my inventions are *multifarious* in a
> multitude
> | of ways. Scale is a primary consideration. small is good in this
> particular
> | mechanism for it's potential application. Allthough this mechanism is
> using
> | the same multipole configuration as the SRTT it is not dependent on
> rigid
> | spinning mass to drive the multiple flux fields through the induction
> coils
> | cyclic.
>
> Maybe you can explain what it really does.
In short sustain the dipole of the storage mechanism.
>
>
> |> Then construct it in isolation that prevents
> |> access to any other material or parts (if you want to hide from me how
> it
> |> is
> |> built).
> |
> | I'm not bieng carr here in any way. it should be pretty apparent what
> | materials and parts are used.
>
> Huh? I can't figure out much from the web site and photos and drawings.
>
> For example, for all magnets, you should show the field orientation of the
> magnets in a drawing, or added to a photo.
>
Ok i need a key on some images and my communication skills are fairly
minimal. It would be much easier if i was of academia or if i could express
it in mathematical terms. However that is not the case. I'm a unaccredited
benchtop inventor who's invention has drawn me into the very heart of
natural physics. Seemingly challenging science physics on several levels.
That's not to say that my own understanding hasn't been challenged over the
course of a decade or two.
>
> |> Then show me how much power it produces, and lets run it for a month
> |> and see how much energy it can produce.
> |>
> |
> | Untill i can implement design spacific componants or computer modeling
> the
> | SRTT is at a stand still in research and developement.
>
> Let me know when it works. Be sure to patent it.
>
> --
I allready told you it works. What's more important, that mankind understand
the very basis of natural physics, or terry selfishly worry about lining his
pockets with cash? However don't assume i havn't took measures to protect my
interests.
In all realities i never had money, i don't have money and it is likely i
will never have money.
I will probably die two weeks before my technology is realized. Adding my
name to the list of dead inventors that never lived to see their greatness.
Effectively robbing mankind of the oppertunity of any real understanding of
the concept through the inventors eyes. Why should i be any different? hell
einstien gave several lectures on e=mc2 and it still isn't fully understood.
there are volumes of text on gravity and we as a commonwealth of knowledge
still don't have a clue.
The truth is that natural physics closely guards it's secrets by non
disclosure. If we want to know those secrets we have to discover them. In
many cases we have discovered some key bits of information and academia has
did a wonderful job of catagorizing them into seporate fields of study. That
is a err natural physics would be better understood if academia recognized
that natural physics encompasses everything in the universe and each is
relevant to each other equally.
Terry L Hewett Sr
"maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1f5d4815-8d08-4685...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 5:44 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:39:06 -0700 (PDT) maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> ...
> | Would anyone like to propose an objective (or even philosophical)
> | definition of 'existence' before generating semantic-free questions
> | about magnetic 'fields'?
>
> Object A is known to object B to exist, if object A can effect object B in
> some way.
>
Seems reasonable to me if B is capable of 'knowing', in which case, B
should include humans. However in this case, we know about magnets &
charge but we don't know about mathematical intermediaries, like
fields, that are the consequence of a proposed theory; so tell me
again, why do people BELIEVE in fields?
Simply because we know of their properties and can to a degree interract
with them as we cannot see them.
To answer the question is it moving. YES. it's moving twards an opposite
pole and away from a like pole. It would be safe to say that the field is
updated pretty frequently as the attraction and repulsion properties of the
field happen quickly with great force.
In the case of a field generated by a wire with electron flow. same thing it
is consistant with the electron flow as it traverses the surface of the
wire.
Moving yes more like alive able to adapt to random circumstances as they
occure. define flux.
blackhead
> ----------------------------"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
Yes, but I don't think you've added anything new to what I said.
>In your example the field external to the iron will be
> decreased but that is because the overall field configuration is different -
> as you have a number of "good conductors" in parallel with the original
> "poor conductor" of the air gap. The comparison is apples to oranges because
> the two situations are quite different.
I don't see how your explanation is an improvement on what I said. In
fact, it seems to muddy the waters since you're introducing the idea
of the "magnetic circuit" and "good conductors" of flux etc. You're
complicating things when there is no need to. An applied field aligns
the random orientation of the magnetic domains so that they
collectively give a net magnetic field which adds/subtracts to that of
the applied field, assuming they don't effect the applied field which
is generally true.
> In a motor, adding iron to the magnetic circuit greatly reduces the air gap
> and associated mmf so that the "gap" flux is much higher than would be
> possible without the iron. Certainly "stray fields" will be reduced-that is
> part of the purpose. Again, it is comparing apples to oranges because the
> overall medium and its characteristics have changed.
There's no need, again, to complicate things. Again, the net magnetic
field will be the superposition of the appplied and the magnetic
response of the iron.
> Don Kelly d...@shawcross.ca
> remove the X to answer
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Consider a vertically mounted cylindrical bar magnet. Rotate it by an
| angle ss about its axis. I see no difference in the field after the
| rotation from what it was before the rotation. For an object such as a
| floating horizontal copper disk, what could be a process by which a
| torque is transmitted from the magnet to the disk?
Consider the cylindrical magnet is flattened from a bar to a disk. One face
of the disk is N pole and the other face of the disk is S pole.
Now consider that all but one angular section of the disk magnet is removed.
The removed parts are replaced by non-magnetic non-conductive material of
equal mass so that there is no mechanical disruption of rotation. The means
to measure the field is rotated with the disk holding the magnet so it stays
with the magnet at all times.
Is the field still unchanged from that point of view?
Consider a wire that is horizontal and a magnetic field cutting across that
wire which is vertical. This is in a car with the wire oriented so the ends
are in the direction of the side doors. The car moves along on a circular
race track at high speed. Does this induce a potential between the ends of
the wire?
Replace the car driving in a circle with a rotating planet.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| In article <g8qa2...@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-new...@ipal.net
| wrote:
|
|> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:25:40 -0700 Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
|>
|> | But if something is changing, it certainly is not the B field. If B is
|> | the same after a small rotation of the magnet, there was no change.
|>
|> So if a segment of wire (not a loop), oriented along a vector going
|> outward from the axis of the (non-conductive) disk it is attached to,
|> is under a strong fixed magnetic field (an N54 magnet on one side
|> with N facing the wire, and an N54 magnet on the other side with S
|> facing the wire), and the disk is rotating so the wire has motion
|> perpendicular to both the line of the wire and the field, are you
|> confident this is developing an electric charge difference between
|> the ends of the wire?
|>
|> If you believe that, I have another design for you to consider, that
|> does involve a loop, but where the loop is confined to the disk and
|> does not encounter the "off the disk" field.
|
| I have great difficulty understanding the configuration you are
| describing. To the extent that I understand it, a camera recording what
| is happening will have an after picture that is not the same as the
| before picture. The wire segment will have been displaced.
You have 2 cylindrical magnets. But instead of long bar magnets, these are
flat disk magments. One face is N and the other face is S.
The two magnets are constructed such that they are mechanically held apart
with the N pole of one facing the S pole of the other. I think we can
conclude this forms a strong field between them aligned almost straight
between the magnets.
The wire is constructed in between the magents in a way that also holds the
wire in place. The wire is straight outward from the center (axis) to the
edge, or is slightly shorter on each end.
Everything is constructed rigidly so that it can all be rotated on a single
axis as a single unit. Think of the face of a clock where the wire is one
of the hands of the clock, but instead of being attached at the center, it
is not quite reaching the center. And it will rotate a lot faster than the
hands of a clock.
The wire cannot be displaced unless the force is sufficient to break the
rigid construction.
I need to find a good 3D drawing tool to illustrate these ideas.
phil-new...@ipal.net
|
| <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:g8qar...@news3.newsguy.com...
|> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:00:51 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
|> <terrylh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>
|> | <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
|> | news:g8nba...@news4.newsguy.com...
|> |> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:42:37 -0500
|> |>
|> |> Are you saying this technology makes energy from nothing?
|> |
|> | Not what I'm saying at all. However i am saying that this technology
|> uses
|> | well known and currently applied mechanical interractions to a new
|> mechanism
|> | that has the potential to transform energy in a cyclic manner for a very
|> | long time with little or no losses.
|>
|> Is there an input of energy in some form? What form?
|
| No input or output. it is a closed system. There is only induction into the
| system. in short the electrical aperatus you are powering is induced into
| the system and becomes a part of the closed system. Maintaining system
| integrity.
If there is no output of electricity, what good is it for me? I'm looking
for ways to generate electricity. I expect to obey the laws of physics,
such as the conservation of energy (which means I need to find an energy
source for input that is greater than I need in the form of electricity).
| With that said and should be understood that is under normal operating
| conditions. There is a inital startup that would have to be from an outside
| source.
Sounds like an energy storage system with no way to extract.
|> I'm assuming the output of energy is electrical (a useful form), or one
|> that
|> could easily be converted to electrical. If you can produce 100 watts of
|> power continuously, how many joules per seconds of energy input is this
|> device getting?
|
|
| Again no input or output.
So how is it useful if I can get no energy out of it?
| Prepairing for the multitude of potential risks is more my worry. proper
| facilities are a must.
| When things go wrong they go horribly wrong post haste. think for a minute
| were toying with a frictionless mechanism that has the potential to meet or
| exceed any frequency of change we are aware of and probably many we don't
| know of or have benchmarked per say. Design variations may bring us to this
| point but for now it is not designed to approach a harmful range.
I don't see how this can be frictionless. Even magnetic levitation has some
drag (though less than a wheel).
|> | If you want to experiment with the following technology feel free to.
|> Just
|> | don't forget who you got it from, I want proper noteriety and a copy of
|> your
|> | works. It would be in err to assume that your going to manufacture
|> without
|> | my express knowledge and cooperation. I feel it is safer at this point
|> as a
|> | multipart construction.
|> | http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!mechtrinket2.jpg
|>
|> You have a patent, or have applied for one?
|>
|> Why do you put ! characters in URLs or file names? Strange.
|
| Not so strange. just a personal thing i do on occation. when considering the
| thousands of images one creates or use on websites it is simpler than coding
| or decoding something like this 7r90t21j65.jpg on a consistant basis when
| editing websites. It is also an indicator that the person viewing the
| spacific range of images is a person of interest through website statistics.
So what if you just left out the ! part and had:
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/mechtrinket2.jpg
The reason I ask is that ! is a but more cumbersome for me. The way I
collect and archive URLs manually is affected by the ! character because
in the path I apply the strings I save, the ! has a special meaning. I
then need to manually insert the character \ ahead of the ! to force it
to bypass that special meaning.
| I sent out hundreds of emails with the images and text pertaining to this
| and other technology of mine. it is a way of seeing if they actually viewed
| the images or just discarded the email.
How does the ! part apply to that?
|> Maybe you can explain what it really does.
|
| In short sustain the dipole of the storage mechanism.
So it is an energy storage system?
|> |> Then construct it in isolation that prevents
|> |> access to any other material or parts (if you want to hide from me how
|> it
|> |> is
|> |> built).
|> |
|> | I'm not bieng carr here in any way. it should be pretty apparent what
|> | materials and parts are used.
|>
|> Huh? I can't figure out much from the web site and photos and drawings.
|>
|> For example, for all magnets, you should show the field orientation of the
|> magnets in a drawing, or added to a photo.
|>
|
| Ok i need a key on some images and my communication skills are fairly
| minimal. It would be much easier if i was of academia or if i could express
| it in mathematical terms. However that is not the case. I'm a unaccredited
| benchtop inventor who's invention has drawn me into the very heart of
| natural physics. Seemingly challenging science physics on several levels.
| That's not to say that my own understanding hasn't been challenged over the
| course of a decade or two.
I think you and I are in about the same boat, but just pursuing rather
different ideas (and goals).
| I allready told you it works. What's more important, that mankind understand
| the very basis of natural physics, or terry selfishly worry about lining his
| pockets with cash? However don't assume i havn't took measures to protect my
| interests.
Well, I don't understand it.
If you can get someone to hand over money for it, that's your business.
| In all realities i never had money, i don't have money and it is likely i
| will never have money.
| I will probably die two weeks before my technology is realized. Adding my
| name to the list of dead inventors that never lived to see their greatness.
| Effectively robbing mankind of the oppertunity of any real understanding of
| the concept through the inventors eyes. Why should i be any different? hell
| einstien gave several lectures on e=mc2 and it still isn't fully understood.
| there are volumes of text on gravity and we as a commonwealth of knowledge
| still don't have a clue.
Maybe the understanding of it will be limited to your eyes. I know I do not
understand it.
| The truth is that natural physics closely guards it's secrets by non
| disclosure. If we want to know those secrets we have to discover them. In
| many cases we have discovered some key bits of information and academia has
| did a wonderful job of catagorizing them into seporate fields of study. That
| is a err natural physics would be better understood if academia recognized
| that natural physics encompasses everything in the universe and each is
| relevant to each other equally.
Grand unified theory of everything?
phil-new...@ipal.net
I don't hold a 100% believe in the existance of a field. It may well be that
the "field" is an imaginary concept to explain how objects at a distance can
affect each other.
Consider that we can express alternating EM fields as photons, and the physics
works with both models being considered (though some things are more easily
understood with one model or the other). So why can't we have some kind of
equivalent for a static EM field, like photons with extremely long wavelengths
(in terms of the time we allow a field to remain in its place) which may even
have a spin on them (e.g. photons that spin).
There is a general understanding that particles and photons are finite in that
they occupy a point and possibly some diameter from that point. I personally
do not believe this. My belief is that particles and photons have no boundary
where one can say it exists here, but not beyond. Instead, they are just
insignificant beyond an approximate zone (on the picometer scale). They really
stretch for an infinite distance and every one of them overlaps with every other.
They affect each other in ways that are insignificant, except in certain ways
that we can detect when they are significant enough. _WE_ are made of this
same stuff and _WE_ are affected by other particles (the wall won't let us pass
through so it seems "solid") or photons (the light we sense). Two magnets
attract or repel because their infinite extensions are so well aligned that
they are significant with respect to each other at a greater distance than at
the picometer scale.
Salmon Egg
find any more insight. Before throwing in the towel, I will try asking a
question once more.
Given a uniform and circularly symmetric cylindrical bar/disk magnet
spinning on it axis, how can the rotation of the magnet be detected by
observing properties of the magnetic field alone?
Bill
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Given a uniform and circularly symmetric cylindrical bar/disk magnet
| spinning on it axis, how can the rotation of the magnet be detected by
| observing properties of the magnetic field alone?
I wish I could answer that question, but I cannot. Instead, I'm holding one
possible believe that the field as we think of it is not a complete description
of how a magnet affects other magnets or materials.
Through a series of constructions I can move from the notion of a disk that is
rotating in a magnetic field that has magnets rotating with the disk, to a
large scale construction that has to consider non-relative movement through
space. Specifically, magnet and wire move together through space and this is
going to induce a potential in the wire as a function of that movement, even
where that movement is the rotation of the residing planet, ot orbit around
its star, the star system moving around its galaxy, and that galaxy moving
through the universe. Do you think any of those movements can be used to
induce the potential in the wire that is in an attached magnetic field?
Those constructions are long and complex. It would take a lot of posting and
reading and understanding to see it.
Timo Nieminen
This is an entirely different question from ones about whether the field
moves/rotates.
For small v^2/c^2, the magnetic field is the same for the rotating and
stationary magnet, so, strictly speaking, the rotation can't be detected
from observing properties of the magnetic field alone.
Why restrict it to the magnetic field only? The rotating permanent magnet
is covered well in Van Bladel, Relativity and engineering, pp 296-298. A
unipolar generator uses the electromagnetic field to detect the rotation
quite well indeed.
What kind of insight were you hoping for? The various phenomena are
well-described by existing theory - the electromagnetics of rotating
media is known (but isn't covered in many books).
Salmon Egg
wrote:
<snipalot>
> Those constructions are long and complex. It would take a lot of posting and
> reading and understanding to see it.
This does not respond to my simple question.
Bill
Salmon Egg
Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> For small v^2/c^2, the magnetic field is the same for the rotating and
> stationary magnet, so, strictly speaking, the rotation can't be detected
> from observing properties of the magnetic field alone.
This is good enough for me. For low v^2/c^2, I presume this answer is
the equivalent that you cannot tell.
Bill
Terry L Hewett Sr
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-A22F8...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
Use a compass or magnetic reactive film. However the rate of change will
render that useless as the rpm increases. In fact it will be useless in the
low rpm range under 200rpm.
Terry L Hewett Sr
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g8v4v...@news4.newsguy.com...
In the future what ever you buy will run off of this.
Most electronic items (domestic) in the form of 110/220 actually use dc
voltage. your pc under 12v DC. AC is only needed for the transmission of
power over great distances.
>
> | With that said and should be understood that is under normal operating
> | conditions. There is a inital startup that would have to be from an
> outside
> | source.
>
> Sounds like an energy storage system with no way to extract.
>
>
> |> I'm assuming the output of energy is electrical (a useful form), or one
> |> that
> |> could easily be converted to electrical. If you can produce 100 watts
> of
> |> power continuously, how many joules per seconds of energy input is this
> |> device getting?
> |
> |
> | Again no input or output.
>
> So how is it useful if I can get no energy out of it?
>
"in short the electrical aperatus you are powering is induced into
the system and becomes a part of the closed system. Maintaining system
integrity."
>
> | Prepairing for the multitude of potential risks is more my worry. proper
> | facilities are a must.
> | When things go wrong they go horribly wrong post haste. think for a
> minute
> | were toying with a frictionless mechanism that has the potential to meet
> or
> | exceed any frequency of change we are aware of and probably many we
> don't
> | know of or have benchmarked per say. Design variations may bring us to
> this
> | point but for now it is not designed to approach a harmful range.
>
> I don't see how this can be frictionless. Even magnetic levitation has
> some
> drag (though less than a wheel).
>
I have even eliminated drag coefficient from within the mechanism. It is
frictionless.
mag-lev drag? Explain please?
Sorry I cannot change or rename existing files for reasons of verification.
However i will take that into consideration when naming files in the future.
Thank you for contacting the terrylhewettsr website webmaster with your
suggestion.
>
>
> | I sent out hundreds of emails with the images and text pertaining to
> this
> | and other technology of mine. it is a way of seeing if they actually
> viewed
> | the images or just discarded the email.
>
> How does the ! part apply to that?
>
The ! put's the file higher on the listed website statistics. Saves a great
deal of time searching through hundreds of visitors. I make it a point of
knowing who is viewing my technology and where they are from. This is the
information age and as far as my technology goes I'm well informed.
>
> |> Maybe you can explain what it really does.
> |
> | In short sustain the dipole of the storage mechanism.
>
> So it is an energy storage system?
The battery bank is the storage mechanism to which i was refering to as a
dipole. the multipole belt magnetic field arrangement is also a dipole but
in this application it is not the storage mechanism.
Don't feel alone. I have been researching it for nearly 2 decades. allthough
i have everything about the mechanism and it's link to natural physics at
the core level pretty well versed. there is such a broadband of
entanglements with every action and resulting reaction that it is hard to
describe or answer one question without bringing to attention a few other
related entanglements. it tends to confuse the issue.
>
> If you can get someone to hand over money for it, that's your business.
>
That's also the business of a scam.
>
> | In all realities i never had money, i don't have money and it is likely
> i
> | will never have money.
> | I will probably die two weeks before my technology is realized. Adding
> my
> | name to the list of dead inventors that never lived to see their
> greatness.
> | Effectively robbing mankind of the oppertunity of any real understanding
> of
> | the concept through the inventors eyes. Why should i be any different?
> hell
> | einstien gave several lectures on e=mc2 and it still isn't fully
> understood.
> | there are volumes of text on gravity and we as a commonwealth of
> knowledge
> | still don't have a clue.
>
> Maybe the understanding of it will be limited to your eyes. I know I do
> not
> understand it.
>
Well you show an ernest need to gain understanding and that is the basis to
understanding anything.
>
> | The truth is that natural physics closely guards it's secrets by non
> | disclosure. If we want to know those secrets we have to discover them.
> In
> | many cases we have discovered some key bits of information and academia
> has
> | did a wonderful job of catagorizing them into seporate fields of study.
> That
> | is a err natural physics would be better understood if academia
> recognized
> | that natural physics encompasses everything in the universe and each is
> | relevant to each other equally.
>
> Grand unified theory of everything?
>
> --
Super relativity
phil-new...@ipal.net
|> If there is no output of electricity, what good is it for me? I'm looking
|> for ways to generate electricity. I expect to obey the laws of physics,
|> such as the conservation of energy (which means I need to find an energy
|> source for input that is greater than I need in the form of electricity).
|>
|
| In the future what ever you buy will run off of this.
Then it has to have output of power. You said it had no input or output.
| Most electronic items (domestic) in the form of 110/220 actually use dc
| voltage. your pc under 12v DC. AC is only needed for the transmission of
| power over great distances.
And your device eliminates the need to transmit power over great distances?
|> So how is it useful if I can get no energy out of it?
|>
|
| "in short the electrical aperatus you are powering is induced into
| the system and becomes a part of the closed system. Maintaining system
| integrity."
And what does that mean?
|> | Prepairing for the multitude of potential risks is more my worry. proper
|> | facilities are a must.
|> | When things go wrong they go horribly wrong post haste. think for a
|> minute
|> | were toying with a frictionless mechanism that has the potential to meet
|> or
|> | exceed any frequency of change we are aware of and probably many we
|> don't
|> | know of or have benchmarked per say. Design variations may bring us to
|> this
|> | point but for now it is not designed to approach a harmful range.
|>
|> I don't see how this can be frictionless. Even magnetic levitation has
|> some
|> drag (though less than a wheel).
|>
|
| I have even eliminated drag coefficient from within the mechanism. It is
| frictionless.
| mag-lev drag? Explain please?
Maglev is low drag, not zero drag. Even if operated in a vacuum, it would
eventually slow down a ballistic (no continuing drive power) object.
|> The reason I ask is that ! is a but more cumbersome for me. The way I
|> collect and archive URLs manually is affected by the ! character because
|> in the path I apply the strings I save, the ! has a special meaning. I
|> then need to manually insert the character \ ahead of the ! to force it
|> to bypass that special meaning.
|
| Sorry I cannot change or rename existing files for reasons of verification.
| However i will take that into consideration when naming files in the future.
| Thank you for contacting the terrylhewettsr website webmaster with your
| suggestion.
I just thought it was funny to want to add the ! in the names. I was just
wondering if you had some reason for that, such as it being a mechanism for
your web server software to bypass some script logic or something.
|> | I sent out hundreds of emails with the images and text pertaining to
|> this
|> | and other technology of mine. it is a way of seeing if they actually
|> viewed
|> | the images or just discarded the email.
|>
|> How does the ! part apply to that?
|>
|
| The ! put's the file higher on the listed website statistics. Saves a great
| deal of time searching through hundreds of visitors. I make it a point of
| knowing who is viewing my technology and where they are from. This is the
| information age and as far as my technology goes I'm well informed.
So you want certain files to show up ahead of other files on your own
internal statistic/log reports. OK. Now I know.
|> |> Maybe you can explain what it really does.
|> |
|> | In short sustain the dipole of the storage mechanism.
|>
|> So it is an energy storage system?
|
| The battery bank is the storage mechanism to which i was refering to as a
| dipole. the multipole belt magnetic field arrangement is also a dipole but
| in this application it is not the storage mechanism.
I'm asking about the device as a whole.
|> Well, I don't understand it.
|
| Don't feel alone. I have been researching it for nearly 2 decades. allthough
| i have everything about the mechanism and it's link to natural physics at
| the core level pretty well versed. there is such a broadband of
| entanglements with every action and resulting reaction that it is hard to
| describe or answer one question without bringing to attention a few other
| related entanglements. it tends to confuse the issue.
I might be able to understand it if every part were shown clearly in its
exact position. One thing I also need to know is for any magnets, what
the exact magnetic orientation is. I would also need to know which parts
are rigidly attached to others, and which are moveable relative to others.
Your illustrations managed to show a small fraction of any of this.
|> If you can get someone to hand over money for it, that's your business.
|>
|
| That's also the business of a scam.
If you have something that works, and I mean really works and this can
be proven, you can get money. That's not a scam. Scammers specialize
in getting money from people who are not diligent enough to want proof.
I also know if power comes out, power has to go in from somewhere in no
less an amount. If I get 1000 joules out over some time frame, there
had to be 1000 joules go in over some time frame that does not have to
be the same time frame as the output (note that some of the output can
be heat I don't always want).
| Well you show an ernest need to gain understanding and that is the basis to
| understanding anything.
Yes.
phil-new...@ipal.net
Not it doesn't. But I'm not sure your question (about a magnetic field) can
be answered (as I am not certain there is a magnet field).
phil-new...@ipal.net
| On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Salmon Egg wrote:
|
|> After reading all the posts here on this subject, I do not expect to
|> find any more insight. Before throwing in the towel, I will try asking a
|> question once more.
|>
|> Given a uniform and circularly symmetric cylindrical bar/disk magnet
|> spinning on it axis, how can the rotation of the magnet be detected by
|> observing properties of the magnetic field alone?
|
| This is an entirely different question from ones about whether the field
| moves/rotates.
|
| For small v^2/c^2, the magnetic field is the same for the rotating and
| stationary magnet, so, strictly speaking, the rotation can't be detected
| from observing properties of the magnetic field alone.
|
| Why restrict it to the magnetic field only? The rotating permanent magnet
| is covered well in Van Bladel, Relativity and engineering, pp 296-298. A
| unipolar generator uses the electromagnetic field to detect the rotation
| quite well indeed.
|
| What kind of insight were you hoping for? The various phenomena are
| well-described by existing theory - the electromagnetics of rotating
| media is known (but isn't covered in many books).
I believe his question is equivalent to the question of whether a conductor
that is in motion through space can tell whether the magnetic field that is
crossing it perpendicular to its motion is there as a result of a very long
magnet (imagine billions and billions of bar magnets attached side by side)
that it is moving beside, or the result of a single magnet that is moving
with the conductor. In both of these cases, the field intensity would be
the same for the conductor over the time of its movement. If this conductor
is perpendicular to both the vector of movement and the orientation of the
field, will a charge be induced in both cases?
Timo A. Nieminen
The two cases (i.e., stationary vs moving magnet) aren't the same. The
cases that produce the same physical effects are
moving-magnetic/stationary-conductor and
stationary-magnet/moving-conductor. When there is a difference in the
relative motion, we can expect a difference in the physical effects
(although we might be able to find some special cases where there is
none).
It's simplest to look at it in the rest frame of the conductor. Here, we
compare the effect of the moving magnet and the stationary magnet. The
stationary magnet has no effect. The magnetic field is the same in both
cases, but the moving magnet also produces an electric field, which will
affect the charge in the conductor.
What about the rest frame of magnet 1? Here, the case of the stationary
magnet and the moving conductor is simple - just the Lorentz force acting
on the mobile charges in the conductor. What about the co-moving magnet?
The magnetic field is the same, and the Lorentz force will be the same.
But, again, the moving magnet produces an electric field, and the
resultant electric force is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction
to the magnetic force - the total Lorentz force is zero.
But you are quite correct to say that this is basically similar to the
stationary vs rotating magnet case. There is a difference, namely
the addition of a magnetic Lorentz force as well. The result is the
same - the magnetic field has exactly the same effect in both cases (in
either the stationary-conductor frame or the moving-conductor frame), the
the physical effects are different, due to the presence of an electric
field. Physically distinguishable, but not via the magnetic field alone.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| The two cases (i.e., stationary vs moving magnet) aren't the same. The
| cases that produce the same physical effects are
| moving-magnetic/stationary-conductor and
| stationary-magnet/moving-conductor. When there is a difference in the
| relative motion, we can expect a difference in the physical effects
| (although we might be able to find some special cases where there is
| none).
This is not the Faraday Paradox scenario. Faraday found that when the
magnets were rotated while the disk was stationary, no electricity flowed.
It is suggested that the reason for this is because the field intersected
the disk on one direction and the coupling wires in the other and induced
opposing potentials on each.
| It's simplest to look at it in the rest frame of the conductor. Here, we
| compare the effect of the moving magnet and the stationary magnet. The
| stationary magnet has no effect. The magnetic field is the same in both
| cases, but the moving magnet also produces an electric field, which will
| affect the charge in the conductor.
But is this a case where the movement of the magnet _also_ results in a
change in the intensity of the field?
| What about the rest frame of magnet 1? Here, the case of the stationary
| magnet and the moving conductor is simple - just the Lorentz force acting
| on the mobile charges in the conductor. What about the co-moving magnet?
| The magnetic field is the same, and the Lorentz force will be the same.
| But, again, the moving magnet produces an electric field, and the
| resultant electric force is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction
| to the magnetic force - the total Lorentz force is zero.
I didn't follow what you said with respect to the Faraday experiments.
Were you trying to relate to that?
| But you are quite correct to say that this is basically similar to the
| stationary vs rotating magnet case. There is a difference, namely
| the addition of a magnetic Lorentz force as well. The result is the
| same - the magnetic field has exactly the same effect in both cases (in
| either the stationary-conductor frame or the moving-conductor frame), the
| the physical effects are different, due to the presence of an electric
| field. Physically distinguishable, but not via the magnetic field alone.
It seems you are not describing the Faraday experiments at all.
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:03:18 +1000 Timo A. Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> | The two cases (i.e., stationary vs moving magnet) aren't the same. The
> | cases that produce the same physical effects are
> | moving-magnetic/stationary-conductor and
> | stationary-magnet/moving-conductor. When there is a difference in the
> | relative motion, we can expect a difference in the physical effects
> | (although we might be able to find some special cases where there is
> | none).
>
> This is not the Faraday Paradox scenario. Faraday found that when the
> magnets were rotated while the disk was stationary, no electricity flowed.
> It is suggested that the reason for this is because the field intersected
> the disk on one direction and the coupling wires in the other and induced
> opposing potentials on each.
In the Faraday Paradox, there are 3 components: magnet, disc, and wire.
That the rotating magnet vs stationary magnet cases are the same, for
either the rotating disc or stationary disc case is one where relative
motion doesn't make much difference (but not _no_ difference). When the
disc is stationary, it's equivalent to putting a loop of wire near a
rotating or stationary magnet. No current will flow around the loop. Yet,
there will be a physical effect, since when the magnet rotates, there'll
be an electric field where the loop is, which will electrically polarise
it. Small effect, so usually ignored.
> | It's simplest to look at it in the rest frame of the conductor. Here, we
> | compare the effect of the moving magnet and the stationary magnet. The
> | stationary magnet has no effect. The magnetic field is the same in both
> | cases, but the moving magnet also produces an electric field, which will
> | affect the charge in the conductor.
>
> But is this a case where the movement of the magnet _also_ results in a
> change in the intensity of the field?
So significant change for v^2/c^2 << 1. The electric field produced by the
movement is first order in v/c, and will completely dominate the observed
physical effects that differ between the two cases.
> | What about the rest frame of magnet 1? Here, the case of the stationary
> | magnet and the moving conductor is simple - just the Lorentz force acting
> | on the mobile charges in the conductor. What about the co-moving magnet?
> | The magnetic field is the same, and the Lorentz force will be the same.
> | But, again, the moving magnet produces an electric field, and the
> | resultant electric force is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction
> | to the magnetic force - the total Lorentz force is zero.
>
> I didn't follow what you said with respect to the Faraday experiments.
> Were you trying to relate to that?
>
> | But you are quite correct to say that this is basically similar to the
> | stationary vs rotating magnet case. There is a difference, namely
> | the addition of a magnetic Lorentz force as well. The result is the
> | same - the magnetic field has exactly the same effect in both cases (in
> | either the stationary-conductor frame or the moving-conductor frame), the
> | the physical effects are different, due to the presence of an electric
> | field. Physically distinguishable, but not via the magnetic field alone.
>
> It seems you are not describing the Faraday experiments at all.
You weren't asking about them. In the Faraday Paradox, electric fields due
to the rotation of the magnet don't produce a current, just an electric
polarisation of the disc+wire. So ignore it; all you need to explain it
working is the Lorentz force.