Hey Russ where's my prize.
Yes in my theory the free electrons are in a electron drift. Which is sustained by spin above atom alignment by the free electrons, but inside the iron as no voltage (pressure) in there to push them out. The amount of drift should be measurable by a meter as Lasersaber did...But it will be tiny...
Be careful using that word current, people may see it differently. But it's there. Minute.

Yeah. I guess I do one you a prize. How about this. Your prize can be the privilege to watch me build a 500lb Newman motor. Lol.

Hehe.

New video will be up today. Looking forward to this :)

~Russ

Ooh your a hard man Russ. But you will have your work cut out so I'll happily sit back and watch. Lol

Quote from sonnet on November 22nd, 2017, 08:52 AM

Ooh your a hard man Russ. But you will have your work cut out so I'll happily sit back and watch. Lol

lol good stuff! This will be exciting know madder what!

~Russ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmMFog10D0

there u go... now do it rapidly as your charging lol

~Russ

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/wirfor.html#c1

the closer the wire, the more they add to each other, so multi strands should woke better then 1 strand of the same weight.  due to this interaction .
i know we already know this, I'm jut adding up the facts the current since agrees...

this is to go along with my video ill be posting later today.

~Russ

i have been thinking why multi strand wire is better. rather a bigger wire with the same resistance.

a lot of it has to do with HF when you try to find data on the ideal. ( skin effect and Proximity Effect)

however, even for this application. its helping the eddy currents that will form in the wire. the more solid, the worse it is.

its the same reason why we use laminated cores. we want that field to to flip fast. and the multi strand dose this for us.

just some thoughts. feel free to add.

also sonnet for you:

see:
Spin Alignment vs Electron Pairs
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/meis.html
~Russ

I have found the difference between Series or Parallel Motor Winding.
But most of you might already know this.

Its better if you read the whole article.

Difference between Series and Parallel motor winding

But i can sum it up.

Quote

Series Winding

An important detail is the polarity of each coil. In the illustration above, the dot marks the ‘positive’ end of the coil. Since the coils are located 180 degrees from each other in the motor’s electrical revolution, they must be driven 180 degrees out of phase. This is done by connecting one of the coils with ‘backwards’. If the coils are not connected so current flows oppositely through them, their magnetic fields will cancel and the motor will not operate.

Series winding stacks both coils in series with one another, causing their impedances to add. Therefore, a series wound motor will have twice the rated winding resistance and inductance.

For a fixed voltage drive, less current will flow through the winding because of the increased impedance. This decreases output torque, but also decreases motor heating and power draw.

Quote

Parallel Winding

The biggest difference between a parallel and series configuration is the time constant of the phase coils. The resistance and inductance of a single phase coil are both halved in the parallel configuration. This leads to a time constant of one fourth that of a single coil! A faster time constant increases torque in the higher speed range of the motor, since the coil reaches its rated current faster. More torque at higher speeds greatly improves the motor’s high speed performance over the series configuration. Check out the stepper motor voltage article for a more in depth explanation on time constants and motor performance.

However, the faster time constant comes at a price. For a fixed voltage drive, the current drawn by the motor is double that drawn by a single coil (and 4 times as much as the series configuration). The increased current causes [​IMG] losses to be 16 times as high as the series configuration. Although this increased power loss is dramatic, it is accompanied by an increased capability for useful output power.

Yea, still searching and researching :)

hummm, unfortunately that is not as helpful is i would hope. as we are doing things slightly different. Thanks for posting anyhow.


this might help but its still talking about high frequency.

http://www.psma.com/sites/default/files/uploads/tech-forums-magnetics/presentations/is95-litz-wire-practical-discussion-its-uses-and-limitations-high-frequency-transformers.pdf

like i said, when you see my water analogy in my video, you will see why multi strands works...


~Russ

ah, more thoughts, the smaller the wire, the less the electron density.... so for the same amount of copper, smaller wire will be better for alignment and pressure.

wow this single doc has so much information so clearly... amazing ...

http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/033_Chapter-25-Resistance-and-Current-PML.pdf
~Russ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG9FLQHhY-A

http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/russ/newman/BEMF%20CEMF%20EMF%20Transients.%20RWGresearch.%20The%20Search%20For%20Answers%20Part%2010..pdf

enjoy...

~Russ

Quote

also sonnet for you:

see:
Spin Alignment vs Electron Pairs
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/meis.html

Nice one Russ, the points to remember are;

Quote

The makers of superconducting magnets face a basic difficulty which Lindenfeld has put succinctly "magnetism and superconductivity are natural enemies"

i.e    . magnetism is resistive and superconductivity has no resistance

and

Quote

Macroscopic magnetization depends upon aligning the electron spins parallel to one another,

I had considered only the free electron at play here in my theory, but my entangled state of the electron has a basis which is seen within the inner shells and the pairing effect of the electrons. Almost all talk of the electron state is in the context that the electron is a particle within energy exchanges and this is in keeping with how I see it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/coop.html#c1
In feynman's diagrams the particles that are virtual particles are actually represented as wavy lines and straight lines for particles, feynman draws the electron as a particle in his energy representations of force transfers. So even they see a physical particle i.e. a dual property for the electron.
Superconductivity is a weird beast to behold though. because the electron can still move freely.

Quote

magnetism is resistive and superconductivity has no resistance

If I threw a magnet in outer space would it slow down?... well no therefore logically magnetism is not always resistive.

Quote

Superconductivity is a weird beast to behold though. because the electron can still move freely.

I find that remark a little strange because it is like saying resistance and friction are normal when in fact they are not the norm in 99% of the rest of the universe. As well an electron could theoretically move freely not unlike in a superconductor for trillions of years in the other 99% of the universe. I just find it odd that many always seem to want to drag everything down to a more primitive Earth bound level when we should be trying to rise above it.

I like to do thought experiments, for example if I was born and lived on the space station all my life then Gravity would be abnormal and completely foreign to me. Friction and resistance would also be somewhat abnormal as well and seem out of place. As above so below and how is it that in order to uphold the conservation of matter all particle/fields must perpetually move near the speed of light for eternity?. Until of course we try to move them as an electric current by whirling magnets past coils of copper wire and then it turns into a lesson in absurdity.

You see what has always been missing from humanity is a universal perspective, to see past our false beliefs, our idiosyncrasies and all the baggage we carry with us and simply accept nature as it is. Were just a bunch of bipeds on a big rock spinning on axis orbiting a star and most of what we think we know is not even remotely close to being considered normal in the rest of the universe. As they say... understanding we have a problem is the surest way to find a solution to it.

i agree one power. its a universe laws that  we need to play with. i have said that for a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHCc9b2phn0

EDIT: fixed numbers! (i think)
on a side note,

paralleling wires has been confusing, however it finally clicked. ( after a lot of math)

you can lower the voltage, and keep the same amp / turns... that's it.

yes, the resistance is a lot less, but its ok, because you have to lower the voltage and the amperage goes back down to responsible again..

example,
30awg, 200lb 1000v
resistance in parall (10 strands).  665.84  ohms


amps: 1.50      
watts 1,501.87   
amp turns: 92,682


resistance in series. 66,584

A:  0.0150   
watts: 15.0187
amp turns: 926






30awg, 200lb 10v
resistance in parall (10 strands).  665.84  ohms


amps: 0.02      
watts 0.15   
amp turns: 927


resistance in series. 66,584

A:  0.0002
watts: 0.0015
amp turns: 9.3




i may need to second check that so some one do it for me... lol please...

so for the same 927 amp turns value we can parall the wires, lower our voltage. that lowers the amperage. then we can boost up a little bit if we want more amp turns...

if some of you already knew this... yeah yeah... but for me it was confusing because its said that litz in parall in an inductor did not add to the amp turns. however i think it dose... I'm going to check this with real wire tomorrow... will see what happens to the inductance... with the same amount of wire..

sure is easier wrapping 20,10lb spools rather than 1 200lb spool!

~Russ

@onepower

Quote

Superconductivity is a weird beast to behold

Onepower in this statement I am trying to rise above the human perspective and see it from  a different view...I am questioning it more than rejecting it's absurdity.
The behold states it is so....the beast is to be mastered....understood...
I agree therefore with your comments.

Magnetism propagates through space. It is a resistive force to energy in space...look what our magnetosphere does for starters...flux Eminates between galaxies. Your thinking of the solid mass from where the magnetism comes from...But even this can be seen when you look at earth travelling though space with it's resistive magnetic field, blocks and slows energy....enough said...a debate for another thread maybe....one day. But thank you for making me think

@Russ
I can see the pros for going parallel on the 'fire' segment side.
Convince me it helps the 'short' side which is the most important to getting extra work done.
I'm for it...yer but do we suffer else where...I'm thinking out loud.

edit... im editing that last post i got all the numbers messed up

ok i think its ok, also i made a mistake on the last part of my video. i updated the PDF:

"EDIT: these values were wrong,  fixed below
To generate 1,881 MMF in #2 awg will take @ 1000V X 5,893 A
5,893,000 WATTS

Coil will be I=165mm , D= 165mm W= 86mm
0.17 ohms.

Wire length is 330 meters
Only 317 turns
217 Lb of copper.
.04H


Here are the wright ones:
To Generate 1881MMF in #2 awg we need 1V@5.893A
That’s 5.89Watts.
Wire length is 330 meters
Only 317 turns
217 Lb of copper.
.04H
However, The all the facts still holds true, current is not what makes the magnetic field. it’s only a catalyst I find it interesting that we can use 217lb of copper or .048lbs to get the same MMF... also the #44 coil has almost 10H, where the #2 only .04. and looking at the current: #44=100mA vs the #2=5.8A for the same MMF... so again, current does not fit the bill. All very interesting and also goes against what's currently thought...
"
~Russ

Russ

Quote

However, The all the facts still holds true, current is not what makes the magnetic field. it’s only a catalyst I find it interesting that we can use 217lb of copper or .048lbs to get the same MMF... also the #44 coil has almost 10H, where the #2 only .04. and looking at the current: #44=100mA vs the #2=5.8A for the same MMF... so again, current does not fit the bill. All very interesting and also goes against what's currently thought...

That is interesting because a hot tub laminar flow nozzle is simply a large number of small tubes in a cylinder prior to a nozzle. The laminar flow section takes a large turbulent volume of water and separates it into many smaller more organized flows so the water flow appears as a seamless turbulent free flow on exit. Now if a superconductor is simply a material matrix which bounds electrons to discrete organized layers of non-dispersive flows then the more small copper wires in a set volume or mass of copper the more is starts to act like a superconductor.

Which begs the question... if a superconductor could be seen as lossless yet still produced an equivalent magnetic field then what did we lose?. It may be that most circuits simply generate internal losses equivalent to the output just because we always do the same thing.

I have got to include this video here. It visually gives a great picture of the atoms in the copper and how as temperature drops the electrons change.
It mentions the entanglement and how the cooper pairs are formed and the restrictions bound upon cooper pairs at superconductivity.
How in the centre of wire you see the atom is gradually left with more positive atoms, creating the skin effect. this makes the electrons want to flow to the centre but free electrons by the same token have to keep the space from each other. so a limited number get to the centre
This spacing can be seen in the field by the way the more the electron spin the more the electron in superposition will keep a wider distance as it is ejected out, so the gaps in the field are wider on the outside of the field than the inner,as this has gained more spin. But that last sentence is my theory not what appears in the video.
How you can have a current flow with zero volts.

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

Also on a side note.

Quote from onepower on November 23rd, 2017, 05:26 AM

Russ
That is interesting because a hot tub laminar flow nozzle is simply a large number of small tubes in a cylinder prior to a nozzle. The laminar flow section takes a large turbulent volume of water and separates it into many smaller more organized flows so the water flow appears as a seamless turbulent free flow on exit. Now if a superconductor is simply a material matrix which bounds electrons to discrete organized layers of non-dispersive flows then the more small copper wires in a set volume or mass of copper the more is starts to act like a superconductor.

Which begs the question... if a superconductor could be seen as lossless yet still produced an equivalent magnetic field then what did we lose?. It may be that most circuits simply generate internal losses equivalent to the output just because we always do the same thing.

This gose back to the load dose not consume the energy...  The load genarates its own heat,  and the source discharges its self...

~Russ

Quote

How you can have a current flow with  zero volts.

What is a magnet..... This answers your question. 

Think of eds PMH.

Don't forget. All gyroscopic particles are the same....

That's why Joe states that all energy is kinetic .
~Russ

Yep, this is getting clearer.
use current and dissipate your energy through heat in wire resistance to atmosphere             or
use voltage and dissipate your energy through magnetism, particle spin to atmosphere

Quote from sonnet on November 23rd, 2017, 09:53 AM

Yep, this is getting clearer.
use current and dissipate your energy through heat in wire resistance to atmosphere             or
use voltage and dissipate your energy through magnetism, particle spin to atmosphere

Yep!!

Happy thanks giving for those who selabrate it.

I'm thankful for everything...

~Russ