Just a quick response, I haven't read all of the replies thoroughly.  It will be sometime later today after I serve my 8 hours of labor for the man.

I have purposely been trying to grasp the concept on my own without reading too much of this thread.  Mostly I have only watched Russ's search for answers series which was a big help on me visualizing everything, and read a good portion of the newman book from the pdf on this site.

Now that I feel like I understand the concept at a basic level I will certainly begin reading things like Russ's doc...I haven't seen that one yet.

I just hope I can still do my day job because all I can think about right now is this concept...OCD's...lol

Later,
Brad

@ Brad
read this brad
Russ's Document
http://open-source-energy.org/?action=dlattach;topic=3128.0;attach=17654

@ a basic level,
Newman uses the spin that's in every atom, makes that emerge from the copper in the coil, using the least amount of current ('run' segment)...turns another magnet rotor, that turning of the rotor turns a commutator which isolates the coil from the battery circuit and at the same time puts it into a short (a lc circuit). Note...the rotor magnet is still turning and inducing current into the coil whilst it is in oscillation.
When the coil is in the short the magnetic field is slow to dissipate and continues to push the rotor around to the next segment on the commutator and it repeats the cycle.
current is not used in the same context as a normal electric motor...don't think of electronics to understand the making of the field as it is made slightly differently and current is a catalyst not the prime mover.
Its all about the extraction of inertia from the atom, using the spin

@Brad then read this

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 12:59 AM

So, can you play devil's advocate and try to explain why pushing on a rotor magnet would in fact drain energy from the LC resonator?

SS

sure, Induction of the magnet is not included in this thought currently. so depending on how we set that up we could inner fear with the LC resonance.

The magnet its self would not "drain" the energy from the LC resonator. but the magnet flux influence on the coil might disrupt it in such a way that it is not helpful. we can also set it up to be helpful.

in the end the hope would be that it dose not influence the the LC resonance and for the most part we can nall out any affects from the magnet. on the LC resonance. 


~Russ

PS the magnet sitting on the side of the coil dose not have any effects on inductance. ( to small to measure any any way) so we dont need to worry about that at the moment.

The rotation speed of the rotor magnet would influence the LC resonance and control the frequency of the LC circuit as I'm seeing it.
Think of my pendulum swinging...It's made of metal...Think of another pendulum parallel to it this is a magnet and much more inertial..the one pendulum would control the swing frequency of the other...

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 12:59 AM

Russ,

Okay, I am going to ask you to play devil's advocate for this one.

You state that you set up a parallel LC resonator and it blocks current flow at the resonant frequency which is fine.  Then you state that it just needs a tiny injection of energy per cycle to keep it topped off which which is fine.

Then you state that some kind of electrical load would drain energy from the LC resonator but you can take advantage of the magnetic field to push on a rotor magnet without draining energy from the LC resonator.

So, can you play devil's advocate and try to explain why pushing on a rotor magnet would in fact drain energy from the LC resonator?

SS

I can. Quantum physics explains it. I encourage you to check out the peer-reviewed study by Boyer et. al. in 1975, showing the hydrogen atom in its ground state (ie: lowest orbit) would be in a state of equilibrium between Larmor radiation and absorption of QVZPE at the correct radius for a classical Rutherford hydrogen atom. NASA had this to say about the Quantum Vacuum:

Quote from NASA

A thing to note is that the integral of the perturbation of the quantum vacuum around the nucleus for a given atomic number Z and quantum number n is exactly equal to the energy level of the electron in that state. The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the "orbiting" electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.

That's a process called vacuum polarization, it's a geometrical transform of the scalar quantum vacuum wave modes into a sinusoidal motion, which translates into a circular (spherical) electron orbit (a sinusoid being a circular function, after all), propelling the electron in its orbit about the nucleus and sustaining it in that orbit.

As I explained in another thread:

Quote from Cycle

Now add in the fact that as that magnetic field is collapsing, you've got a huge permanent magnet rounding the bend and giving those electrons a bit more of a push... you get more out of the coil than in, at least for that particular cycle.

The next cycle, you time it so that the huge permanent magnet is now traveling away from the coil, and the inrushing current and building magnetic field gives that magnet a push.

Now think about what causes a permanent magnet to have a magnetic field. Is it not the coherent collective aggregation of Larmor radiation thrown off by the orbiting electrons? Sure it is. My prior posts have the references to peer-reviewed studies which prove this.

So here's where it gets weird... when you temporarily steal orbital momentum from the electrons in the permanent magnet in the first cycle, they grab more energy from the quantum vacuum to regain their original orbits, the quantum vacuum being the only place electrons can get their energy.

So by the time that permanent magnet rounds the bend and its pole starts heading away from the coil, its electrons are already back to their original orbits and their orbital momentum restored via energy taken from the quantum vacuum. Thus the push the coil gives the magnet goes into sustaining its rotational rate.

It's not about more copper being better, it's about more electrons taking more energy from the quantum vacuum per cycle. So the bigger the magnetic interaction between the coil and the permanent magnet (and the bigger the permanent magnet), the more power you're going to get out.

As Russ says, it's not over-unity, it's exactly unity... the energy you've stolen from the electron orbits in the first part of the cycle go into electrical potential, then it's converted to magnetic potential in the coil to build a magnetic field which pushes on the rotating magnet, then it's converted to kinetic energy (rotation) of the permanent magnet, rinse and repeat. Once you're over the level of energy extraction from the quantum vacuum such that you're overcoming the losses, the machine will run with no macroscopic external energy input.

You are literally converting the microscopic kinetic energy of the orbiting electrons into macroscopic kinetic energy of the rotating permanent magnet. In the process, you're trying to steal a bit of that energy to do useful work. The magnetic hardness of your permanent magnet will determine how much energy you can steal without demagnetizing the permanent magnet... take too much and your magnet loses strength, take below that level and it'll just take more energy from the quantum vacuum to sustain electron orbital momentum.

Russ,

Quote

sure, Induction of the magnet is not included in this thought currently. so depending on how we set that up we could inner fear with the LC resonance.

The magnet its self would not "drain" the energy from the LC resonator. but the magnet flux influence on the coil might disrupt it in such a way that it is not helpful. we can also set it up to be helpful.

in the end the hope would be that it dose not influence the the LC resonance and for the most part we can nall out any affects from the magnet. on the LC resonance.

In your lecture series #6 you say there is no OU.  Your language above "but the magnet flux influence on the coil might disrupt it in such a way that it is not helpful. we can also set it up to be helpful" is fuzzy and we need clarity.

When I say "pushing on a rotor magnet" I am assuming that you understand what I mean.  I mean that the push from the magnetic field of the LC resonator makes the rotor magnet move.  Imagine for the sake of argument that the LC resonator just pushes on the rotor magnet once in a single direction and it moves to a new location.  Then imagine at the new location that the rotor magnet is now too far away from the LC resonator to move any more, the static friction in the bearing prevents it from moving.

So, it took energy to make the rotor magnet move just once, right?  And you say that there is no OU.  So would the fact that the rotor magnet moved just once drain energy from the LC resonator?

SS

Cycle,

Quote

I can. Quantum physics explains it. I encourage you to check out the peer-reviewed study by Boyer et. al. in 1975, showing the the hydrogen atom in its ground state (ie: lowest orbit) would be in a state of equilibrium between Larmor radiation and absorption of QVZPE at the correct radius for a classical Rutherford hydrogen atom.

But the quantum world and the macro world are two different things.  I think you are also mixing up Larmor radiation and the fact that a moving point of charge (electron or proton) subtends a magnetic field.  Larmor radiation refers to EM radiation radiating away from accelerating charges but from what I gather the subtended magnetic field around a moving point charge is not radiated away.  Rather, the magnetic field is inherent to the moving point charge.  However, I am not competent in QED at all so I am just skimming the surface.

Quote

You are literally converting the microscopic kinetic energy of the orbiting electrons into macroscopic kinetic energy of the rotating permanent magnet. In the process, you're trying to steal a bit of that energy to do useful work. The magnetic hardness of your permanent magnet will determine how much energy you can steal without demagnetizing the permanent magnet... take too much and your magnet loses strength, take below that level and it'll just take more energy from the quantum vacuum to sustain electron orbital momentum.

There are two issues with this for me.  You are talking in generic terms so why isn't this "replenishing" phenomenon being exploited everywhere today?  From what you are saying it is not specific to a Newman motor.  Secondly, the discussion is about the energy in the LC resonator and what happens to that energy and not anything really to do with a permanent magnet.

SS

Sonnet,

Quote

@SS
Can you explain why the rotor magnet keeps going when you know that a SRF LC circuit is going on in the coil during the short...
You have seen the rotor turn...where is the pixie dust that makes it keep going even when the current flow in the coil reverses...

This one has me puzzled because in a later post you seem to be implying that there is no self-resonance happening during a shorting cycle.

And in fact during the shorting cycle there is no SRF LC circuit phenomenon taking place.  The current keeps flowing in the same direction and decays to zero because of the coil resistance.  i.e.; There is no current flow in the coil reversing such that the decaying magnetic field in the shorted coil gives the same push on the rotor magnet as there was during the firing cycle to keep it turning.

SS

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:35 AM

Cycle,

But the quantum world and the macro world are two different things.

Two interrelated, interconnected things. To deny this is to deny the very foundational underpinnings of, for instance, matter itself. Without the quantum vacuum, matter would not exist, as Boyer and NASA explain in my prior post.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:35 AM

I think you are also mixing up Larmor radiation and the fact that a moving point of charge (electron or proton) subtends a magnetic field.

Larmor radiation is the physical explanation for the emanation of a magnetic field from an accelerating point charge. It is in the form of virtual photons, which mediate the electromagnetic fundamental force. A moving point charge (the orbiting electron) undergoing rotation about the nucleus is undergoing angular acceleration, the two requirements for Larmor radiation being a moving point charge, undergoing acceleration.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:35 AM

Larmor radiation refers to EM radiation radiating away from accelerating charges but from what I gather the subtended magnetic field around a moving point charge is not radiated away.

Incorrect. According to quantum mechanics, an electric field is merely a magnetic field in a static frame of reference, therefore a magnetic field is an electric field in a moving frame of reference... the quantum vacuum polarization around the nucleus is what changes that frame of reference for the emitting point charge (the orbiting electron), hence magnetism.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:35 AM

Rather, the magnetic field is inherent to the moving point charge.

No. There is no 'inherent' in the universe... everything has a cause. Larmor radiation and vacuum polarization is the explanation of the cause of magnetism.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:35 AM

However, I am not competent in QED at all so I am just skimming the surface.

There are two issues with this for me.  You are talking in generic terms so why isn't this "replenishing" phenomenon being exploited everywhere today?

Because everyone has been taught that doing so violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, so not very many want to put their careers on the line by following a line of inquiry which everyone says is impossible, perhaps?

The thing is, the 2LoT is for a closed, isolated system... any machine we build (which utilizes the EM fundamental force) is not (cannot be) a closed, isolated system due to the quantum vacuum interaction.

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:35 AM

From what you are saying it is not specific to a Newman motor.  Secondly, the discussion is about the energy in the LC resonator and what happens to that energy and not anything really to do with a permanent magnet.

The energy is being transferred back and forth between the coil and the permanent magnet, you cannot separate the two and look at the system from the vantage point of only the coil or only the magnet. The permanent magnet has two factors to consider, the electron kinetic energy (and hence momentum), and the macroscopic kinetic energy of the magnet itself. The coil is merely the means by which to convert that electron momentum into macroscopic kinetic energy of the magnet itself.

This is where you sit down in front of your setup with a pencil, an eraser, and some graph paper and you develop timing diagrams, described in an earlier posting. You make timing diagrams for the simple basic tests you mentioned. You annotate them explaining what the signals are and what they do and and show any interdependencies between signals. You can even add your own virtual signals for things like electrical work or energy and mechanical work or energy.... or quantum vacuum interaction. :D

Cycle,

Quote

This is where you sit down in front of your setup with a pencil, an eraser, and some graph paper and you develop timing diagrams, described in an earlier posting. You make timing diagrams for the simple basic tests you mentioned. You annotate them explaining what the signals are and what they do and and show any interdependencies between signals. You can even add your own virtual signals for things like electrical work or energy and mechanical work or energy.... or quantum vacuum interaction.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree with the above quote.  And I am not even going to try to argue quantum physics with you.  But there is one thought that is interesting, if the electron in a hydrogen atom is constantly accelerating and radiating energy that doesn't make sense.  And here is something related to that from Wikipedia:

Quote

A classical electron orbiting a nucleus experiences acceleration and should radiate. Consequently, the electron loses energy and the electron should eventually spiral into the nucleus. Atoms, according to classical mechanics, are consequently unstable. This classical prediction is violated by the observation of stable electron orbits. The problem is resolved with a quantum mechanical description of atomic physics, initially provided by the Bohr model.

But that's it, I really can't say any more.

And so the "bench theme" beckons and I am really curious to see what Russ will say about my follow-up post about the LC resonator and the rotor magnet that only moves once.

SS

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 11:43 AM

Well, I wholeheartedly agree with the above quote.

I would hope so... you wrote it. :D

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 11:43 AM

And I am not even going to try to argue quantum physics with you.  But there is one thought that is interesting, if the electron in a hydrogen atom is constantly accelerating and radiating energy that doesn't make sense.

In light of the NASA study I linked to previously, it makes perfect sense. An orbiting electron in its ground state has a net zero energy emission due to the fact that the energy being emitted in the form of virtual photons (magnetism) is perfectly balanced by the energy the electron is receiving from the quantum vacuum. Hence the quantum vacuum underpins the stability of all matter. This is the reason all matter exhibits magnetism, usually diamagnetism, although certain atomic arrangements override the underlying diamagnetism with ferromagnetism.

Cycle,

Quote

In light of the NASA study I linked to previously, it makes perfect sense. An orbiting electron in its ground state has a net zero energy emission due to the fact that the energy being emitted in the form of virtual photons (magnetism) is perfectly balanced by the energy the electron is receiving from the quantum vacuum. Hence the quantum vacuum underpins the stability of all matter. This is the reason all matter exhibits magnetism, usually diamagnetism, although certain atomic arrangements override the underlying diamagnetism with ferromagnetism.

Fair enough, but I am still wondering if the issue of micro vs. macro is going to bite you in the quantum bubble in the end!  I suppose we shall see what transpires.

For some inspiration, let's look back at some classical electro-mechanical dynamics.  Carbon atoms in a crystal matrix interacting with polyvinyl chloride resin.

SS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPP3Pz63aNc

Hey Russ
I understand this won’t apply to the current Newman build but it may be something to think about for a future build.

As many of us know if you drop a magnet down a copper tube the eddy currents will tend to slow down it’s fall.

These eddy currents have no outlet because the tube is solid. Now if we make a large copper coil and connect the ends I think it may have the same effect as a solid copper tube. This is speculation, I did no testing.

If true then there may be an advantage to having the magnets rotate inside the coil.

By shorting the coil at certain time then maybe the eddy currents would help generate some extra energy ? 

Just some speculation I wanted to put out there to think about.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:21 AM

Russ,

In your lecture series #6 you say there is no OU.  Your language above "but the magnet flux influence on the coil might disrupt it in such a way that it is not helpful. we can also set it up to be helpful" is fuzzy and we need clarity.

When I say "pushing on a rotor magnet" I am assuming that you understand what I mean.  I mean that the push from the magnetic field of the LC resonator makes the rotor magnet move.  Imagine for the sake of argument that the LC resonator just pushes on the rotor magnet once in a single direction and it moves to a new location.  Then imagine at the new location that the rotor magnet is now too far away from the LC resonator to move any more, the static friction in the bearing prevents it from moving.

So, it took energy to make the rotor magnet move just once, right?  And you say that there is no OU.  So would the fact that the rotor magnet moved just once drain energy from the LC resonator?

SS

no, the if the magnet is not changing anything ( like the peek voltage of the ring, or the frequency of the LC, ) then the magnet will move with no influence on the LC resonance. The damping of the resistance is 100000x more influnical than the magnet is...

however as i said, if the magnet is inducing then we might have a completely different result.

~Russ

Russ,

Quote

however as i said, if the magnet is inducing then we might have a completely different result.

This is the key.  And why are you saying "if?"

Watch, we can strip this example down to a bare-bones test and it could be a great exercise for you and for everyone.  We go bare-bones by just looking at what is effectively one half-cycle of the LC resonator with a simpler model:

Take a simple fist-sized air-core pulse motor coil:   <12-volt power supply +ve> --> <coil> -->  <transistor switch>  -->  <Ground>

The transistor is switched on with a one-shot 0.1 second pulse.  The coil has a reverse-biased diode across it to discharge the coil after the pulse.

Test A:  Pulse the coil.
Test B:  Put a 1" neo magnet an inch away from the coil and pulse the coil.  Observe the magnet get kicked away from the coil by about six to ten inches.

So, there is your absolute barest bones test that emulates the essence of what we were just talking about.  So the question is can you explain the energy dynamics for the two tests and can you explain the differences (if any) between the two tests?

This may almost seem silly but it is in fact very important.  You want to explain how a pulse motor actually works.  Consider it a dress rehearsal for the real tests on the Newman motor.  If you can get through this then you are in better shape for the Newman motor testing.

If you want to take a crack at it you could use your DSO and actually do the test, or you could just do it by posting your explanation for what happens.  I think it would be a good exercise for you to use the DSO and start getting into real analysis work with it.

Or if you are not interested then perhaps someone else could explain it.  Or I could give you my high-confidence explanation for what is going on.  But I must stress if I explain it then chances are it's not going to stick, this is where you learn by either doing the experiment in real life or you do the experiment as a full thought experiment.

It may sound almost silly, but it is serious.  Everybody interested in a Newman motor should be able to understand the two tests so you can apply that knowledge.

SS

Calulations for wensdays video...

~Russ

Quote

This one has me puzzled because in a later post you seem to be implying that there is no self-resonance happening during a shorting cycle.

My mistake SS...please accept my apologies...
Regards

connecting coils in parall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQdr_eYtv8
~Russ

If you split the big coil into two coils in parallel then you get a new coil with half the resistance and one-quarter the inductance.  That gives the battery bank a better chance to get some juice into the coil and give the rotor magnet a better push and the results are showing that.  If you had a sensor coil wrapped around the big coil presumably it would show you that the modified big coil was generating more magnetic flux.

god bless us all

~Russ

Russ, given that the magnetic field emanating from the coil (and from the permanent magnet, come to think of it) is in the form of a "twisting torus", you should explore running the Newman replication motor with the permanent magnet at various angles (in the horizontal) to the coil... there should be a "sweet spot" where it runs better at a certain angle than it does while perpendicular, dependent upon the frequencies of "twist" of both the permanent magnet's and coil's magnetic field (which is dependent upon the field strengths of both the permanent magnet and the coil, and in the case of the coil, upon the frequency of the voltage pulses).

Line up your gears better to get more power out, to put it to a mechanical analogy.

Mheh, I've got a migraine. I've been trying to grok flavor gravity mediation, and it's not sitting well with my brain... I can't quite bring myself to believe gravity requires particle mediation, given that it's an emergent property of space-time curvature per CDT, and is thus merely a negative potential energy (I've written about how the QVZPE field could act as gravity... and how it could repel given sufficient energy input... in prior posts. That's as near to 'mediation' as my brain can get... mediation via virtual fermion-antifermion pairs of the scalar quantum vacuum (ala the Casimir Effect for large objects and long distances), which isn't really mediation in the classical sense)... especially considering that flavor mediation also implies the possibility that gravity can change the quantum properties of the object being acted upon via flavor transmutation. That, in my thinking, would lead to a very weird universe. I'm off to bed.

Cycle, listen to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFgsRQ7DClA

Think of perpetual spin, rotation and the harmony of contact.  The universe isn't as weird as one might think.

Quote

god bless us all

God bless you Russ...thank you...