Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...

Cycle

Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
«  »Last edited by Cycle
This is sort of a take on how a homopolar generator works, but with a twist.

Ok, so assume you have a magnet in the shape of a pipe, with it magnetized along its length.

Now assume you have a central rod of Teflon (selected because it holds a negative charge very well). You put the rod lengthwise in the center of the magnet and affix it so it can't move or rotate. The rod has to be mounted such that it's electrically insulated so the charge can't drain off.

You put the magnet on a bearing so it can rotate, with the rod at it's axis of rotation (ie: the rod is exactly in the center of the pipe-shaped magnet).

You set up a self-charging system via triboelectric charge separation... some materials have a tendency to give up electrons easily (low work function material), whereas some have a tendency to attract electrons (high work function material)... you can look up the Triboelectric Series for good combinations of materials. So for instance, Teflon on the central rod, rubbing against rabbit fur lining the interior of the rotating magnet will cause the central rod to have a negative charge, whereas the rotating magnet will have a positive charge.

Now spin the magnet. What happens? The rod will build up a negative charge which interacts with the magnetic field, trying to spin the rod in the opposite direction to the magnet's rotation... but since the rod can't spin, that force is transferred back to the magnet... in other words, the rotating magnet will accelerate as it attempts to conserve the angular momentum of the magnetic field (of the rotating magnet) and static electric field (on the rod), which are acting against each other... a vector force. The faster it spins, the faster it wants to spin.

Now, take a look at the Right-Hand Rule for magnetism...
Point your index finger straight out... this represents the direction of current flow.
Point your other fingers at a 90 degree angle from your index finger... this represents the B field, the direction of the magnetic field.
Point your thumb straight up... this represents the direction of the resultant force.

"But Cycle, the direction of the current flow and the direction of the resultant force are in the same direction for a rotating cylinder! The two will cancel and the whole thing will spin to a standstill because there's no frame-dependent motion!"

Sure, except the Right-Hand Rule for magnetism pertains to positive charge... if you're using a negatively charged static electric field, you should reverse the direction your index finger is pointing.

"But Cycle, the resultant force is pushing straight outward! All that'll accomplish is a uniform outward pressure against the walls of the magnet, with no vector force!"

Sure, if the magnet was stationary against that resultant force... but General Relativity is a strange thing... by the time the resultant force pushes back against the rotor, the rotor has moved, so the resultant force is pushing at an angle... it's sort of the reverse of frame dragging. Think of it as "frame pushing".

This is known as a Lorentz transformation... a coordinate transformation due to a change in perspective from a stationary to a moving frame of reference. Since the virtual photons travel at c, the rotation of the rotor means that the virtual photons must travel a distance of 2*c*delta_T, where c = speed of light, and delta_T = time span between the rotor's interaction with the central rod, and the central rod's resultant force interacting with the rotor.

The faster the rotor spins, the greater that angle is, increasing the effective force transmitted (think in terms of an engine firing at just the right time such that the piston is pushing down with maximum force at the exact time that the crankshaft is at a 90 degree angle)... I'm not sure if we'd ever be able to spin it fast enough that the resultant force is pushing at the perfect 90 degree angle, though, without the rotor disintegrating.

Now imagine that you're standing on the outer surface of a transparent rotor, facing in the direction it's rotating. If you reverse the perspective such that you're looking at the movement from the perspective of the rotor, the rotor appears to be stationary, and the central rod appears to be rotating rearward, much like a road appears to be moving rearward from the perspective of a moving automobile. Thus the static electric field appears from the perspective of the rotor to be moving, and it's in the direction that corresponds to the Right-Hand Rule for magnetism, for a negative charge.

A static electric charge creates a static electric field. When the rotor is at a standstill, since a static electric field and a stationary magnetic field don't interact, nothing happens. But by spinning the rotor by hand, it causes a relative motion between the rotating magnetic field and static electric field, which causes the static electric field to create a magnetic field in the frame of reference of the rotor (but strangely, from the lab frame, no magnetic field from the static electric field should be apparent... from the lab frame, it just remains a static electric field, no magnetism at all). This frame-dependent magnetic field opposes the rotating magnetic field, imparting a vector force to the rotor.

That is frame-dependent torque, and that is why this device will work.

We've been building magnet motors the wrong way out. Or more to the point, we've been pointing our B fields inward or outward, when we should be pointing them along the axis of rotation... and we've been routing our B fields on the outside of the magnet, when we should be routing them through the middle of a cylindrical magnet to create a 'gearing effect' (two gears acting against each other rotate in opposite directions) between the cylindrical magnet's magnetic field and the frame-dependent magnetic field.

Given that cylindrical magnets which are magnetized along their length, when spun, generate unipolarly their own static electric field (positive on the outside of the magnet, negative on the inner surface), those electrons in the magnet which are pushed to the inner surface of the magnet by the magnet's rotation will be transferred to the central rod by the work function differential of the two materials mentioned above (Teflon and rabbit fur in this case). This acts to enhance the voltage build-up, and transfers those electrons so they're no longer traveling along with the rotor, instead they appear to be moving in the frame of reference of the rotor (but you'll note that from the lab frame, it's still a static electric field).
Quote from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6096&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The conduction electrons experience a force −ev × B which is mainly directed towards the central axis; as a result a negative charge appears in the body of the magnet, and a positive charge on its curved outer surface.
Where does the power come from to sustain rotation? The QVZPE field, which sustains the electrons in their orbits in the magnet. We're literally converting their microscopic rotation into macroscopic rotation which we can use. We steal a bit of energy from them, they grab more energy from the quantum vacuum to sustain their orbits.

How to control the speed of rotation? Well, the force generated is directly proportional to the voltage of the static electric field... so you'd have a wire connected to the central rod on one end, and to an adjustable spark gap on the other end. The spark gap's other electrode goes to ground (or to the positively charged frame of the machine, given that the rotating magnet is positively charged and will be charging the rest of the machine positively). To slow it down, narrow your spark gap.

How to stop it? Adjust the spark gap to zero, grounding the central rod and draining off the static electric field. The frame-dependent torque no longer exists, and the rotor slows to a stop.

Alternatively, you could place the central rod's support on a slide, such that when you want to vary the speed, you simply slide the central rod inward or outward. To stop it, slide the central rod all the way out of the rotor.

It should also be noted that the larger the outer diameter of the central rod (and thus the larger the inner diameter of the cylindrical magnet), the greater the torque will be. Since we're working with relativistic speeds of interaction via virtual photons, there is no tradeoff of speed for torque in this case (as there would be, for instance, when increasing the crankshaft throw of an internal combustion engine, which will get you more torque, but at the expense of a lower-revving engine due to piston speed limits due to combustion flame-front speed), since there's no way we could ever spin the rotor fast enough to outpace the propagation speed of the resultant force.

It should also be noted that I recently discovered that the above-described frame-dependent torque is how Searl is explaining the operation of his SEG, although I can't figure out how he's moving electrons inward to experience frame-dependent torque if the rotating magnets create a positively charged static electric field on their outer surface and a negatively charged static electric field in their center. Perhaps he's doing the same as I'm doing, only with an opposite charge (positive inside, negative outside), and relying solely upon unipolar generation of the static electric field in the rotating magnets, whereas I'm relying upon work function differential. I'll have to study it more.


Matt Watts

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #1,  »
Perhaps you have an interesting concept there Cycle.

It probably needs a second look and some searching to see if anyone has proposed a similar device.

Cycle

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #2,  »Last edited by Cycle
I've been reading up on the Charge-Magnet paradox, in which a magnetic moment experiences a torque when in a static electric field, but only in some frames, not all... the configuration I outlined above would be one which does exhibit a torque.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.4684.pdf

I've also been reading up on the Trouton-Noble paradox, in which a charged capacitor has a 3-dimensional torque in its inertial frame, but none in its rest frame. Think how weird that is... if you saw a charged capacitor whiz by you in outer space (so no other effects acted upon it), it would have a force that causes it to twist or rotate... but if you caught up to that capacitor and watched it, there would be no twisting or rotation. That torque is time acting upon the capacitor... different rates of passage of time between capacitor and observer and you get a torque, same rate of passage of time of the capacitor and observer and you get no torque.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0606176.pdf

The reason the configuration I outlined above experiences a net torque is because although the center rod has a static electric field from our frame of reference, as soon as you start rotating that magnet, it's not static in the frame of reference of the magnet. Movement slows time, so we've changed the rate of passage of time between the center rod and magnet, and the passage of time of the magnet and the observer is different, as well... some odd effects  of our odd universe.

Where it gets really weird is that although the center rod isn't moving in our frame of reference, it is moving in the frame of reference of the magnet, so the center rod's passage of time is affected, as well, but not in all frames of reference.

You'll remember my discussion of how electrical generators work, the motion (rotation) of the generator slows time, causing a perceived charge compression which pushes electrons out over the wire. The electrical equipment powered by that generator all work because the electrons are attempting to reorient themselves back to their original time frame, imparting power to our electrical devices.

The electrons are merely the medium by which we transfer the power. The power is time itself.

So, if my hunch is correct, that center rod will have a current flow in the frame of reference of the magnet, although from our frame of reference, it's static electricity.

Here's where it gets really, really weird... the rotating magnet's altered passage of time due to motion, and the stationary center rod's altered passage of time in relation to the rotating magnet also alters the passage of time of the observer.

In a paper by Oziewicz (referenced in the second link above), he states: "Minkowski, and then Ivezi'c, observed correctly that if a Lorentz transformation is an isomorphism of a vector space, then the entire algebra of tensor fields must be Lorentz-covariant. An active Lorentz transformation must act on all tensor fields, including an observer's time-like vector field."

What exactly the effect upon the passage of time of the observer is, I don't know.

One thing I do know, though...

You'll remember my expounding upon how magnets work, that the magnetic material is too weak to resist the internal energy of the magnet, thus approximately half the domains unpin and flip to minimize the magnet's internal energy. This is why you can cut a magnet and you'll still have a N and S pole on each cut piece. This is also why there is an outflowing interface at the center of each pole face, and an inflowing interface at the periphery of each pole face (which is why a steel ball will always roll toward the periphery of a magnet's pole face, it's seeking the lowest energy position within the magnetic field).

You'll also remember I'd stated that if we could come up with some magnetic material with sufficient magnetic hardness that those domains didn't unpin and flip, we'd have an outflowing interface on one pole face, and an inflowing interface on the other pole face. The outflowing interface would increase QVZPE tensor (time speeds up, space contracts), the inflowing would decrease it (time slows down, space expands).

You'll also remember my stating that magnets in electrical generators have three factors which they use to generate electricity... the increase of QVZPE tensor on the magnet's outflowing interface and the decrease of QVZPE tensor on the magnet's inflowing interface tend to cancel out, but the magnet provides the virtual photon flux we need to interact with the electromagnetic fundamental force and thereby make electrons move... but we need to add a third factor, that being motion, which slows time down and expands space, creating a perceived charge imbalance which forces electrons out over the wire.

Thus if we could come up with some magnetic material with sufficient magnetic hardness that those domains didn't unpin and flip, it would be a trifling matter to create a motionless (and fuel-less) electrical generator.

We've accomplished that, after a fashion, in the above-described device. The static electric field (frame-dependent magnetic field) on the central rod of the device has no domains to unpin and flip, its magnetism is a wholly quantum mechanical phenomenon not dependent upon magnetic material to manifest the magnetic field. That's where the net vector force comes from, all in accordance with QM.

Matt Watts

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #3,  »
Quote from Cycle on February 27th, 2017, 09:11 PM
The power is time itself.
This is why I really don't like the construct of 4D space-time.  I much prefer W.B. Smith's Quadrature Concept of fabrics:  fields and space.  The main highlight of this concept are the three fields:  Electric, Magnetic and Tempic.   Each field can present a force.  The Tempic Field presenting a force is completely natural and logical.  We observe time moving forward at an apparent steady rate.  Such would be a force that makes it move in the direction and intensity that we observe.  And like any force, it could be reversed under the proper conditions.  To me, I don't see any paradoxes with the Quadrature Concept as you have highlighted above in those papers.  It all boils down to the framework you use to describe the universe.  With the right one, things make a lot more sense and little if any transformations are necessary.

If we examine the three fields, we notice certain characteristics.  Magnetic fields tend to be found in closed loops.  Electric fields appear to be point-to-point from object to object.  The tempic field...?   Since our science hasn't adopted this methodology, it's hard to say how this field is bounded.  My rough guess is that it is open ended, with infinity divided by two being the center or neutral point.

Another thing I will mention is the term energy.  Is such a construct even necessary?  If we have fields and forces, do we really need to abstract away from them by throwing in the term energy?  Seems to me this actually complicates things because by using this term we lose sight of the fields and forces that produce it.  I don't need to know how much energy is required to move something from A to B.  All I need is a positive force vector from A to B and some means to reverse that vector and stop at B.  I have three fields available and can use them to create the proper force vectors, why complicate things...?

Cycle

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #4,  »
I updated the original post with additional details and a rough sketch. I think I'm going to give this one a try... a few kinks to work out about its construction, but it appears that it should work.

Matt Watts

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #5,  »
Do it Cycle.  This could be good.

Cycle

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #6,  »Last edited by Cycle
Hey Matt, check out the addition of the last paragraph in the original post. What do you think?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLRKDlE8c4

Seems to me, the attempt at pushing electrons outward is (at least partially) negated by the spinning magnets generating unipolarly a positive charge on their outer surface... Searl is working against the natural flow of where the electrons want to go. And with all those spinning magnets with a negative charge in their core and a positive charge on their outer surface, he's got to be creating a lot of eddy currents that waste power.

And he claims the unmagnetized neodymium has a high affinity for electrons, but it only has a middling work function (3.2 eV), when compared to, for instance, iron (4.67 eV),  nickel (5.04 eV), platinum (5.12 eV) or Teflon (5.75 eV).

But if frame-dependent torque is how the Searl machine works, then yeah, it could actually work... I suspect the reason he's having such trouble getting it to work has at least partly to do with the above mentioned issues.

{I wonder if the Searl team have tried simply charging their inner plate's neodymium core with a high positive charge to see if their machine works under that condition... if it does, then what's stopping them is insufficient charge accumulation.}

Matt Watts

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #7,  »
Quote from Cycle on February 20th, 2017, 12:39 AM
It should also be noted that I recently discovered that the above-described frame-dependent torque is how Searl is explaining the operation of his SEG, although I can't figure out how he's moving electrons inward to experience frame-dependent torque if the rotating magnets create a positively charged static electric field on their outer surface and a negatively charged static electric field in their center. Perhaps he's doing the same as I'm doing, only with an opposite charge (positive inside, negative outside), and relying solely upon unipolar generation of the static electric field in the rotating magnets, whereas I'm relying upon work function differential. I'll have to study it more.
Quote from Cycle on August 14th, 2017, 05:54 PM
Hey Matt, check out the addition of the last paragraph in the original post. What do you think?
For starters I would have to translate the terms, charge, electron, static electric field, torque, etc. into concepts I can work with--fields, gradient, divergence, curl, inertia.

What you should notice immediately with the SEG is that it is a round device, which means the field pressure near the center will always be larger than the field pressure near its exterior.  Rotation will encourage this separation of field pressure.  This is for one particular field with two other fields oriented at right angles.  I see no reason why polarity cannot be flipped.  Of course I'm viewing things in relation to dielectric fields and not electrons.

Cycle

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #8,  »Last edited by Cycle
The more I learn about the Searl SEG, the more I think we're both working on the same sort of machine... the differences:

1) Mine is single-stage, whereas his has multiple stages... this is because:

2) My machine relies upon both rotating unipolar magnetic charge separation and work-function differential of two materials for charge separation, whereas Searl's machine relies solely upon unipolar generation of a static electric field in a spinning magnet, so he's got to work harder to build up enough charge, he's got to cascade three stages of charge separation to develop enough static voltage to produce enough vector force.

2a) Mine relies upon material contact for electron transfer, whereas his relies upon a somewhat complicated mechanism of electrons (fermions) pairing into "boson pairs" (according to the Searl team), which are able to be transferred with the rest of the magnetic flux (a magnetic field merely being a static electric field in a moving frame of reference). His rollers are magnetized to generate the static electric field, and "cogged" magnetically to get them to roll around the perimeter of the main magnet.

3) My magnet is rotating, whereas his main magnets are stationary... (by not rotating his main magnets, he's forced to resort to the satellite roller magnets as means of charge separation, which seems to me to be a sort of kludge, when rotating the main magnets would produce much more charge separation).... and thus:

4) The charge separation is opposite. I push the electrons inward to a central rod, he pushes them outward.

5) His device seems to waste a lot of energy in eddy currents with all those alternating magnetic fields of the rollers, whereas my design would waste essentially none.

6) The Searl machine would output AC, whereas mine would output high-voltage DC. (I'd have to rework the central rod to allow current flow out of the machine, rather than just Teflon to just hold a static electric field... perhaps a nickel central rod covered with a perforated Teflon cover. I was more leaning toward utilizing the rotation of the machine to drive a conventional generator, rather than tapping the separated charges made in the machine).

We could accomplish pretty much the same thing (multiple stage charge separation) without all the complicated machining and fitting together of different materials, and still push the electrons inward... just have several magnetized rotors geared together with conductive gears in between the inner surface of the outer rotor and the outer surface of the inner rotor. The Right-Hand Rule for magnetism and the relative charge on the inner surface of each outer rotor and outer surface of each inner rotor would dictate that each rotor rotate in the same direction as the one immediately inside it, and at a greater speed (just as the Searl machine rollers act... the outer rollers go faster). So a compound gear train between each rotor would be required.

The rotating magnets would unipolarly shuttle positive charges outward and negative charges inward (as outlined in the reference in the original post), whereupon the work-function differential of the two transfer materials would transfer the electrons from the innermost rotor to the central rod. This removes the electrons from the rotating frame of reference of the rotors to the stationary frame of reference of the central rod, whereupon we get our frame-dependent torque.
Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #9,  »Last edited by Cycle
I just had a thought... a magnetic field is merely a static electric field in a moving frame of reference, but outside that moving frame of reference there should be no magnetism apparent... but what if that frame-dependent magnetic field (when viewed outside the moving frame of reference) is in another form (think in terms of gravitoelectromagnetism here)?

I referenced a paper in my second post of this thread, quoting:
Quote
In a paper by Oziewicz (referenced in the second link above), he states: "Minkowski, and then Ivezi'c, observed correctly that if a Lorentz transformation is an isomorphism of a vector space, then the entire algebra of tensor fields must be Lorentz-covariant. An active Lorentz transformation must act on all tensor fields, including an observer's time-like vector field."
The rotating magnet's shape is that of a cylinder, whereas the magnetic field of the rotating magnet attempts to take the shape of a torus. The surface area and volume of a torus can be computed using the same formulas as a cylinder, under the Pappus–Guldinus theorem, thus the first homology group of the torus is isomorphic to the cylinder, and thus the Lorentz transformation between the cylindrical magnet and toroidal magnetic field is isomorphic.

That Lorentz-covariance means that although outside the moving frame of reference the static electric field still appears as just a static electric field (instead of a magnetic field), there will be some sort of effect upon the vector space's tensor fields. Perhaps this explains the Searl claim of gravity modification (if Searl is to be believed on this point... to me, seeing it would be believing it).

We know in 4-space that velocity is time-like and Lorentz invariant, whereas acceleration is space-like, time-invariant and orthogonal to it. In other words, equivalence requires acceleration to curve space in the same way that rest mass curves space... inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent, and inertial mass is a manifestation of the 'reluctance' of charged fundamental particles to accelerate through the QVZPE field. You'll note this also includes neutral fundamental particles such as neutrons, since they're made up of quarks, which carry partial charge.

This was originally proposed by Andrei Sakharov, but was never fully fleshed out by him. Others (Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda) fleshed it out within the framework of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), although some inconsistencies still remain to be solved.

This is why a static electric field attracts opposite charges or repulses like charges in a straight line, whereas a magnetic field attracts or repulses in a circular motion... the Lorentz transform (coordinate transformation) between a stationary (static electric field) and a moving (magnetic field) frame of reference is what does it. This is also how we know the virtual photons entering and exiting a permanent magnet are in the form of vortexes.

Thus, an object that is changing speed or direction (acceleration) is expected to generate a gravity wave, and a rotating cylinder is undergoing angular acceleration. The coupling between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields dictates that a magnet rotating about its polar axis should experience a gravity tensor orthogonal to its rotation, in the opposite direction to its B field.

(This means if the Searl team's stator magnets are pointed North upward, then the rollers must have their North downward... thus in that configuration, the Searl SEG would experience a downward force under angular acceleration of the rollers. I wonder if they've ever tried flipping that around so their stators are North downward and their rotors are North upward? Seems to me that if they're going in the same direction as the already-prevailing gravitational field, they're not going to be able to work against that field to create a tensor they can tap. To put it in terms of an old-fashioned water wheel, they've got their 'water wheel' pushing the 'water current' along, instead of using the 'water current' to turn the 'water wheel'.)

This would imply that gravity and electromagnetism are two sides of the same coin (hence gravitoelectromagnetism), and would further imply that space and time are two sides of the same coin (hence space-time).

So looking at the Right-Hand Rule mentioned above (and considering it for the regular positive charge), your index finger is current flow (motion through space), your other fingers are B field, your thumb is resultant force... opposite your other fingers is gravity, opposite your index finger is time... I'm not sure what the opposite of your thumb would be, though. Inertial mass, perhaps?

This means electric charge is time-like, whereas a magnetic field is space-like.

Anyway, it may be that adding in that frame-dependent static electric field / magnetic field is what kicks that gravity tensor change into 'high gear'.

{EDIT}
Yeah, I was right. A heavy ion or electron current increases the coupling coefficient between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Even though the central rod has a static electric field from the lab frame, from the rotating frame it's got a high voltage current moving at a high velocity (in contrast to a normal electrical current, which is actually moving quite slowly), which is bound to increase the coupling coefficient.
Quote from https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0003/0003011.pdf
Although the coefficient is very small, the fact that electromagnetic fields in material media can be used to generate gravitational and gravitomagnetic fields and vice versa is not commonly known. We find that the coupling coefficient can be increased by massive ion currents, electron and nuclear spin-alignment.
Quote from https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0003/0003011.pdf
The main objective of this paper is to show that every electromagnetic field is coupled to a gravitoelectric-gravitomagnetic field and that induction between both fields is possible. The derived coupling is generally valid and does not require special properties like superconductivity. This enables a new approach to think about experiments which could modify the gravitational fields in terrestrial laboratories. Successful means for producing significant non-Newtonian fields promise many spin-off applications presently only possible in the microgravity environment of space
{/EDIT}

It is further postulated that deceleration of invariant mass charged particles creates a gravitational force. In my proposed device, the electrons would not only undergo deceleration as they were stripped from the rotor, they'd experience a further deceleration in that they would then be moving in the opposite direction in that rotating frame (ie: they go from rotating clockwise (when viewed from the central rod end of the device) in the lab frame, to rotating counter-clockwise in the frame of reference of the rotor). That combines a Lorentz transformation, a high voltage, charged particle flow, and that flow is faster (in the rotating frame) than the typical electron drift in a conductor... so there should be some interesting effects, not the least of  which could be x-rays (remember, in 1895, Wilhelm Roentgen produced x-rays for the first time by rapidly decelerating high-energy electrons in a process that's the inverse of the photoelectric effect).

onepower

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #10,  »Last edited
Maybe Gravity is a simple variation of the "Cheerios effect", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerios_effect.



Cycle

Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #11,  »Last edited by Cycle
I just learned that this is a derivation of the Feynman Disk Paradox (or Feynman Cylinder Paradox). In that paradox, the central rod is a wire carrying current. When the current is interrupted, the stationary disk (or cylinder) starts to rotate. This is because the wire is operating by the Right-Hand Rule for positive charges, and the current flow magnetic field (in the center conductor, in this case) and magnetic field of the disk (or cylinder) are orthogonal, thus they already each have angular momentum (even when the disk (or cylinder) is stationary) which are mutually cancelled. When the current is interrupted, conservation of angular momentum dictates that the disk (or cylinder) starts to rotate.

In my variation, I've flipped Feynman on his head... not only are we not mutually cancelling that angular momentum, we're making the angular momentum of the negative static electric field (frame-dependent magnetic field) and the rotor's magnetic field work against each other. Thus the cylinder should rotate.

Some physicists call this "ExB propulsion". It's the result of crossing the E field and B field, thus 'ExB'.

It's the inverse of the Einstein-de Haas Effect.

Owen Richardson in 1908 predicted that magnetizing a magnet could impart mechanical rotation to it, and Einstein and de Haas did the experiments in 1915 to prove the theory (hence it was named after them)... this is the inverse effect, we're attempting to de-magnetize the magnet by stealing some of its electron spin and orbital angular momentum, which imparts mechanical rotation. We're relying upon the magnetic hardness of the ferromagnetic material to ensure the magnet doesn't actually demagnetize.

My configuration turns the Einstein-de Haas Effect on its head to steal some of the spin and orbital angular momentum of the electrons in the magnet (which is what makes the magnetic field), and convert that into a vector force. This causes an energy deficit in the magnet. The electrons are forced to recoup that energy from the QVZPE field, the only place electrons in orbit about a nucleus can get their energy.

The opposite (as opposed to the inverse) of the Einstein-de Haas Effect is the Barnett Effect (spinning an uncharged body imparts a magnetic field to it), and that is theorized to have macroscopic grativoelectromagnetic effects. Thus my inversion of the Einstein-de Haas Effect should have the same sort of effects.

And it should be pretty 'torquey'... here's a similar setup that's charged via a conventional power supply:
Quote from http://www.free-energy-info.com/Issue12.pdf#page=49
...the maximum value of the torque of self-action N at the current I=1 A is even larger than the value of the torque produced by the traditional unipolar device [3] at the current 50 A.
Re: Perhaps we've been looking at this whole thing backwards...
« Reply #12,  »Last edited by Cycle
I've been reading about the Aether Model:
http://www.free-energy-info.com/P65.pdf

As outlined in Chapter 3, Stefan Marinov did three variations of the same experiment wherein he used a charged disc and a Hall Effect sensor.

In the first variation of the experiment, he spun the charged disc but kept the sensor stationary. This manifested a magnetic field. This agrees with the predictions of General Relativity.

In the second variation of the experiment, he kept the charged disc stationary and spun the sensor around it. This did not manifest a magnetic field. This does not agree with the predictions of General Relativity. This is analogous to what the above-described machine does in keeping the central rod stationary.

In the third variation of the experiment, he spun the charged disc and the sensor at the same speed. This manifested a magnetic field. This does not agree with the predictions of General Relativity.

So, if the machine doesn't work as it is described, it would stand as a nullification of standard theory, and a validation of the Aether Model. :shocked:

Fortunately, there's an easy way to get it working even under the Aether Model... merely gear the central rod so it spins in the opposite direction of the magnetic rotor. The gearing will still transfer the frame-dependent torque, causing both the magnetic rotor and central rod to spin. This could be done with a planetary gearset, with a fixed carrier. Because the central rod would now have motion relative to the quantum vacuum, a B field would manifest from the static electric charge on the central rod.

Of course, the central rod and magnetic rotor would need to be electrically insulated so current couldn't flow through the planetary gearset.

The main problem, if the Aether Model is correct, is that in order for a magnetic field to manifest from a static charge, there needn't be relative motion between the charge and the observer, but there must be relative motion between the charge and the quantum vacuum.