A Sound Magnetic Base

145791042

Comments

  • edited January 2015
    There are two diametrically opposed ways of thinking in the development of physical theories. One of these ways, to which I subscribe without any reservations, is based on the unshakable belief in cause-effect, i.e. in the Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason as expressed in the following words of Jaynes:
    We need to understand that present quantum theory uses entirely different standards of logic than does the rest of science.

    In biology or medicine, if we note that an effect E (for example, muscle contraction, phototropism, and digestion of protein) does not occur unless a condition C (nerve impulse, light, and pepsin) is present, it seems natural to infer that C is a necessary causative agent for E. Most of what is known in all fields of science has resulted from following up this kind of reasoning. But suppose that condition C does not always lead to effect E; what further inferences should a scientist draw? At this point the reasoning formats of biology and quantum theory diverge sharply.

    In the biological sciences one takes it for granted that in addition to C there must be some other causative factor F, not yet identified. One searches for it, tracking down the assumed cause by a process of elimination of possibilities that is sometimes extremely tedious. But persistence pays off; over and over again medically important and intellectually impressive success has been achieved, the conjectured unknown causative factor being finally identified as a definite chemical compound. Most enzymes, vitamins, viruses, and other biologically active substances owe their discovery to this reasoning process.

    In quantum theory, one does not reason in this way.

    Physics of ‘Random Experiments’, see section titled But What About Quantum Theory?
    Another way of thinking, which ultimately leads to a dead end, is typified in the most naked form by Feynman, who declared in his Nobel Prize lecture:
    Many different physical ideas can describe the same physical reality. Thus, classical electrodynamics can be described by a field view, or an action at a distance view, etc. Originally, Maxwell filled space with idler wheels, and Faraday with fields lines, but somehow the Maxwell equations themselves are pristine and independent of the elaboration of words attempting a physical description. The only true physical description is that describing the experimental meaning of the quantities in the equation - or better, the way the equations are to be used in describing experimental observations. This being the case perhaps the best way to proceed is to try to guess equations, and disregard physical models or descriptions. For example, McCullough guessed the correct equations for light propagation in a crystal long before his colleagues using elastic models could make head or tail of the phenomena, or again, Dirac obtained his equation for the description of the electron by an almost purely mathematical proposition. A simple physical view by which all the contents of this equation can be seen is still lacking.

    Therefore, I think equation guessing might be the best method to proceed to obtain the laws for the part of physics which is presently unknown.
    In other words, Feynman believes not in building mechanical models that are consistent with common sense and suggested by it, but in equation guessing and in the implications of those equations, no matter how absurd and repugnant they are to common sense. What a foolish methodology!

    Feynman seems to understand though the perils of the approach he is advocating, for he proceeds to say:
    Yet, when I was much younger, I tried this equation guessing and I have seen many students try this, but it is very easy to go off in wildly incorrect and impossible directions.
    Was he an arrogant and self-absorbed fool, or a phony who knew exactly what he was doing?
  • edited January 2015
    Now, about "Maxwell filled space with idler wheels". This is exactly the mechanical model that was so instrumental in the development of Maxwell's theory, which was ridiculed by Feynman elsewhere, and was spoken about somewhat disparagingly by Poincare in Maxwell's Theory and Wireless Telegraphy:
    The complicated structure which he attributed to the ether rendered his system strange and unattractive; one seemed to be reading the description of a workshop with gearing, with rods transmitting motion and bending under the effort, with wheels, belts and governors.

    Whatever may be the taste of the English for conceptions of this kind, whose concrete appearance appeals to them, Maxwell was the first to abandon his own extraordinary theory, and it does not appear in his complete works.
    Even though Poincare goes on to say: “But we cannot regret that his mind followed this by-path, since it was thus led to the most important discoveries”, he does not seem to truly understand how realistic this model is; instead, he seems to share Feynman's belief in guessing equations as the right methodology for building physical theories. Perhaps he can be excused, for he was a mathematician – not a physicist, but Feynman was a physicist, and his susceptibility to the hypnotic charm of beautiful mathematical equations seems rather odd and difficult to explain.
  • edited January 2015
    We can study rotations, magnets, Maxwell equations, and many other interesting things. Each of us, like a dung beetle, can dig in his favorite little piece of dung. But all that is without much meaning unless we understand what is happening to all of us on planetary scale.

    There is this remarkable fact, discovered in the second half of the last century, that every cell in a living organism contains the complete genetic material and thus could reproduce the entire creature. In the same way, every human being, being all but a cell in the living organism of mankind, contains the "seed" of what is driving the "organism" at large, and what is happening to it right now. That "seed" is the truth, and the truth is we live today in an Orwellian world designed by professional liars, whose very survival hinged on their ability to lie. But knowing the truth is not enough; every one of us has to accept his or her share of responsibility to upheld that truth and expose the liars, or, at least, to give moral support to those of us who have the courage to do so. As Dr. William Pierce put it, "we have to stop being shirkers and start being participants."

    There are many who do not shirk and do not shrink from telling the truth. Minister Louis Farrakhan is one of those who do not shirk and do not shrink. Bobby Fischer was another one. Unfortunately, majority of people do not know anything about these rare manifestations of the power of human spirit.

    But I firmly believe that the number of people willing to engage in "losing" games will grow exponentially in the coming years, for playing the losing game individually is the only way we can win as a whole. In a nutshell, that's what Prisoner's Dilemma is all about:
    In the Prisoner's Dilemma game, two individuals can each either cooperate or defect. The payoff to a player is in terms of the effect on its fitness (survival and fecundity). No matter what the other does, the selfish choice of defection yields a higher payoff than cooperation. But if both defect, both do worse than if both had cooperated.
  • edited January 2015
    Returning to the question of the nature of rotation. If we restrict ourselves to the case of rigid bodies, an exhaustive account of kinematics of motion can be found in A Treatise on Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies by E. T. Whittaker.

    In particular, see Chasles' theorem on the most general displacement of a rigid body (pp. 4-5), which states:
    The most general displacement of a rigid body can be obtained by first translating the body, and then rotating it about a line. Moreover, the line about which the rotation takes place can be so chosen, that the motion of translation is parallel to this line.

    This combination of a translation and a rotation round a line parallel to the direction of translation is called a screw; the ratio of the distance of translation to the angle of rotation is called the pitch of the screw. It is clear that in a screw displacement, the order in which the translation and rotation take place is indifferent.
    See also Halphen's theorem about how to determine geometrically the resultant of any two screw-displacements as a screw-displacement (pp. 5-6).
  • edited January 2015
    A passage from Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview published in Popular Science Monthly: A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future
    Toward the end of the interview, we asked Tesla which arena of science most appealed to him. While we expected him to mention radios and airplanes, the world wireless system, it was not the induction motor; instead it was the discovery of the principle that preceded the induction motor, the “rotating magnetic field”. Tesla answered: “rotating magnetic fields were dear to my heart. When I made the discovery of the rotating magnetic field, I was a very young man. The revelation came after years of concentrated thought and it was my first great thrill. It was not only a valuable discovery capable of extensive practical applications. It was a revelation of new forces and new phenomena unknown to science before”.
    “No”, Dr. Tesla said with some feelings, “I would not give my rotating field discovery for a thousand inventions, however valuable, designed merely as mechanical contraption to deceive the eye and ear!”
    Then saying: “A thousand years hence, the telephone and the motion picture camera may be obsolete, but the principle of the rotating magnetic field will remain a vital, living thing for all time to come.”
    Principle of the rotating magnetic field? If it was, as Tesla put it, "a revelation of new forces and new phenomena unknown to science before”, then he obviously believed that he discovered something that was not captured in the Maxwell's theory, which basically amounts to mathematical formalization of Faraday's understanding of the nature of electricity and magnetism.

    One wonders whether Tesla ever explained precisely, or described at length somewhere in his writings what this principle is all about.
  • edited September 2014
    NASA attempts to accommodate the plasma universe?

    H

    There is still a long way for them to go before they get on the right track, and reevaluate what we do not know that is gravity, with what we know better, but not perfectly, that is plasma fluid dynamics!
  • Tesla Ampère Örsted rotating magnetic field discovery .
    The history of this rotational force field or vortex goes way back. It starts perhaps with observations of the " dragons" of the auroras and lightning discharges above and below clouds and the earth and volcanic eruptions.

    The Western scientific discussion of it probably starts with Galileo Grimaldi Descartes Spinoza Leibniz and Newton. Of these Newton probably caused the vortex nature of force to be abandoned through the success of his method of inquiry. That is not to say that he did not acknowledge the existence of rotational force or vis. He just was not able to work out how to measure it and thus reduce it to mathematical form.

    Volta is the next scientific philosopher who expected this kind of firce in the atmosphere around materials especially metals. But once again he was over ruled by Benamin Franklinites who wanted to maintain the "straight " path. Only Örsted was sympathetic to a philosophy that allowed for a curved force. However he had to be bold and rebuild his scientific credibility after being duped by theorists and hypothesisers who could not be bothered to empirically check their guesses.

    Örsted carefully empirically tested his observations and subsequent deductions from his philosophical understanding of those observations before submitting his paper in 1820. It was Arago who was impressed enough to demonstrate Örsteds findings to an incredulous and somewhat hostile French Academy. Only Ampère recognised and set out to establish a mathematical " law" or formula for this circular firce. He declared the new field to study this rotational force as Electrodynamics.

    Electromagnetism via Maxwell was developing slowly alongside Ampères electrodynamics. Ampère however resigned from studying it further despite its importance, and his subject thus lacked a driving impetus, unlike Maxwells electromagnetism, which despite its hostile reception found champions in Helmholtz, Hertz, Lord, Fitzgerald, Heavside and other Maxwellians.

    Of these Hertz and Heaviside substantially rewrote the theory to produce a more mathematically coherent form which was empirically testable up to a point. That is it was a limited version of the forces of electric tension and magnetic tension, and it was limited to circuits and transmission lines.
    Heaviside thus linked electrodynamics to electromagnetism through his revisions, and inclusion of Ampères law. This sparked off a resurgence in the mathematical development of Electridynamics. This is not the same thing as electromagnetic theory as now taught, based on the Hertz Heaviside revisions, using Gibbsean like vector algebras.

    Electridynamics is based on Ampères insight into a circular and circuit based force. However those who developed the mathematics were not as careful as Ampère to maintain and highlight the rotational nature of the force. Using McCullaghs Potential idea which was precisely the curl of a vector field they were satisfied they had a general algorithm that captured Rotation. However, their models do not use rotational forces. Rather they use opposing moments, that is torques as a model of a rotational " force" or as it is called Torque.

    Torque is not analogous to rotational force , but that does not negate the definition of the curl. The curl works for rotational force as well as for torque, but the measures are different and have a different philosophical basis.

    Tesla discovered rotating magnetic fields as a generator engineer. Until him the rotational magnetic field was buried, deliberately in obscure mathematics. However Tesla's devices empirically demonstrated the rotational nature of the field we call magnetic in the dynamic rotation it generated in a motor. However his knowledge of Örsted and Ampères development of the concept was as insignificant as mine was until the philosophy behind the hype about örstedwas brought to my attention by Brau _A_ Tour
  • edited September 2014
    Today , the information on the Floyd Sweet VTA has enabled me to apprehend the importance of screw in understanding rotation called magnetism. While gyre is not distinguishable by the clock face, screw is. Screw is simply rotation about a centre that itself is translating along a path. That path may be straight curved or closed or spiral looped.

    Therefore it is not sufficient to describe the gyre of rotation without also demoting the screw associated with that gyre. A screw is an element of a trochoid, thus the general description of a magnetic system requires trochoidal descriptors.

    Describing screw requires additional descriptors to the right and left hand rules. Thus a righ hand screw forwards is different to a right hand screw backwards. A right hand screw is denoted by the curling of the fingers with the thumb outstretched a right hand screw forward requires the thumb to be ponting in the direction of travel " Forward". To represent a right hand screw backward you actually need your left hand so the thumb can point " backward", The curl of the fingers shows the gyre the combination of fingers and thumb represent the screw. So the left hand has to come across to the right side to denote the correct gyre for the right hand screw!

    These simpe hand rules nevertheless show how fundamentally we are confused by rotation!

    Eds description of a magnetic current requires the RH screw forward and the RH screw Backeards to pass through each other.

    The experimental results from the neodymium magnets , however actually show a RH screw forward with LH screw forward!. This could be due to the bubbles predilection to rise obscuring a possible LHS screw back wards, as it was shown how the bubbles attempted to follow magnetic field lines in one video by Mr2tuff2.

    In any case most people seem to interpret Eds description of vorticular current glow as a RH screw forward against a LHS backwards. To do the LHS backwards you actually have to take your right hand acros to the left side so your gyres are the same LHS and your right thumb points backward!
  • This old video shows the basic use of magnetic currents to move a rotor. The principle of induction is the key. It is the same principle as " electrostatic" induction and the difference is cosmetic!




    Why is the electrostatic induction thought to be non circular? Because the poles between which the magnetic currents are Flowing(!) are in a medium that is more viscous, so the relaxation time though small is enough to allow the medium to remain deformed if the magnetic current enters a material which is less viscous. Removing that less viscous medium quickly leaves the magnetic current entering into a more viscous medium, thus the magnetic current is trapped in a medium out of which it can leak only slowly. This behaviour of gaps under pins the magnetic operation of diodes and triode or transistors,
  • The concept of current is based on induction.

    It is important to realise that current is a simplified conception of an induced motion. We can observe an induced motion only by observing a displacement. Thus in a stream we observe a displacement of a floating object and thus define that as n induced motion. Causation is vested in a supposed motion of the stream .

    It may seem odd to say supposed but within a stream their may be many different induced motions of the test object. Each one of these is attributed to some motion within the general motion of the stream.

    By making this attribution we may then reeified it by drawing some curve or line indicating the locus of the motion and thus giving a supposed real basis to a force action we call a current.

    Within electric and magnetic phenomena we cll this induced motion induction! But then we drag over the fluid model and suppose their to be some current flowing in the wires or bound space of the phenomenon.

    If we remain at the level of induction we can free ourselves from too restrictive a view of the behaviour. So the flux in a magnetic phenomenon is Not the magnetic lines of force, of Maxwell. This flux , defined by Weber is in fact the lines of induction. The lines of induction indicate a pole distribution in a bar or induced magnet, but in a lodestone this pole distribution becomes nonsensical. The lodestone indicates the regionality of the inductive process, showing that a circulation and counter circulation naturally exists. The exact same counter circulation and circulation model exists for so called electrostatic induction.

    The observed behavioural differences can be accounted for by our own mental partitioning of a while circular and spiral circulation of induction.

    Our study of the sun shows this very well, but we still can't believe it. The sun is like a giant lodestone and shows the dynamic nature of the circulations and counter circulations.

    The differences in " material" mediums also accounts for the electric magnetic polarisation in our thought models. The simplest unification is the point of view that sees these differences mediated by the different fractal geometric distributions of the materials structure.

    On a modelling point the differences may be modelled by the relationship between the curvature of the rotations and the dynamic variation of that curvature. Thus " electric" phenomena tend to have a greater dynamic curvature variation than Magnetic ones. Magnetic curvature tends to be more stable and ponderous while electric curvature tends to be more quicksilver.mbecausevthe 2 are aspects of the same behaviour they are always linked, but the different dynamics means this linkage is phase differentiable.
  • edited September 2014
    The easiest way to analogise this phase difference between a change in a rotating system and the outcome of that change, or if you like the cause and the effect, or again if you like to understandvNewtins supposed third law the action and the reaction which may in fact be opposite and equal, not just in the expected direction and proportional to the applied change; I say the easiest example is the gyroscopic behaviour of a spinning wheel under a supposed variable torque effect of gravity.


    Now imagine this experiment repeated with 2 co axial wheels spinning in counter rotation and hung by one end of the common axle. What would happen?

    It is important to note that though this explanation is clear and communicative, the forces that act at the rim are communicated from the Barycentric centre and are not the forces due to the centrifugal masses at the rim. The centrifugal masses are part of a strain network which has a stressor at the centre of rotation where gravity acts and is similarly conducted to the rim . The difference in behaviour between the wheel in rotation and the wheel without rotation is due to the time difference in this action of transmitting the action at the centre to the rim. Thus Newtons third law is meant to cover all these time variations in the term reaction. The strain wave or viscous wave in any material is a reaction to any applied action ir stressing action.

    Motion of any object or region of space must not neglect this " wave" propagation of stress by strain or bulk strain reactions in any medium
  • The so called Faraday Paradox is discussed in this video. But the Faraday motor , unipolar motor is based on an experimental observation by Arago, which is Aragis disc. The fascinating thing about the spinning of a bar magnet is that it does not alter the so called magnetic lines of force , apparently. However this is a relativistic observation in the Einstein sense. We would have to spin the magnet at near light speed to " measure" any changes. However at any speed moving through the magnetic lines of force creates a MMF which we call an Electro Motive Force

  • edited October 2014
    In this video we see the structure of a local magnetic system on the sun.

    It is clear that this system is stable and thus moving with the sun, but that within this system particulate movement occurs tracing out the structural system. Faradays paradox occurs when a copper disc moves in a magnetic system. In that case an MMF is evident as an EMF. But in the case where the magnet spins axially , thus presenting only one pole to the now stationary copper disc " no" EMF is observed between the edge and the centre. The conjecture is that axial rotation of the magnet does not affect the agnostic system .

    If we begin with a rotational force, that acts spherically in space then the role of the inducting material is not causative, it is constructive. Thus the spherically acting rotationl force is bound into the iron core to. Form that particular magnetic system. In a lodestone the specially optional orce is bound into that material spatial structure to form other more omplexity magnetic structures. Rotating the material does not affect the rotational forces because they exist independent of the material. Rotating the material will not therefore appreciably later the construction if the rotation is axial, and in line with the magnetic systems structural arrangement which we identify by the label "polar" c

    The structure of the magnetic system will remain the same along the polar axes, but if the rotation is relative to the polar axis centre then the field system will " mov" relative to that rotation centre so as to mintsin the axial structure.

    We see this in the explanation of the earths magnetic field which always has the same type of shape despite the earth rotating and orbiting the sun.

    There are more complex structures to the magnetic structures that exist on earth, and these do vary over time, so the stability of these magnetic systems may be affected by the rotational motion of the inducting material, but this is not as dramatic as any material moving through a magnetic structure.


  • edited October 2014
    This next video represents conventional generator/ motor design





    Note that Eds principles are not used in the conventional design.
    Eds best generator replaces the transverse magnetic system by an axial PMH. One . The PMH provides , on initiation a magnetic current between the poles of the u shaped electromagnet.. These can be arranged radially to provide an axial alignment with an armature.

    Eds next recommendation is that wound coils should pass through these axial fields, in so doing generating an alternating magnetic current in the coils. Placing these coils on a flywheel which rotates in the U shaped space of the PMH should generate some AC

    How this is wired and initiated no one has yet demonstrated, but Imhotep has correctly drawn the schematic for the generator.that Ed built.
  • AC motors and generators


Sign In or Register to comment.