Quote from ~Russ on November 8th, 2017, 09:25 PM

So joes way is eazy to grasp...  ;)

I'm at chapter 13, working my way through this.  Did any of you guys know that E = MC²...?

 :-D

Thought I was reading Ken Wheeler there for a few chapters.

Page 59 sates not letting the current get back to the battery. Hummm cool.
~Russ

Quote

Page 59 sates not letting the current get back to the battery. Hummm cool.

LOL.... I'll take that as acknowledged shall I.

I'm no electronics expert but give me some plumbing and or Air Conditioning and I'll show you flow rates and heat transfer.  Not OU but moving it about.
So whats a Field (MY TAKE ON IT)
A field in physics is a area of charged space that interactions take place from more than one element, the interactions can be based on addition, division (subtraction/multiplication) but the fields created by magnetism are the areas where E Energy is transferring from M Mass via a quantum tunneling effect. The mass, atoms of the magnet are aligned and excite the dual properties of the electron.(the electrons equilibrium state, the status quo is always in the energy state normally)..The Electron takes on more charge because its spin in accelerated by alignment in this case the atom alignment. The Electron's magnetic moment has no other force acting against it from the other random or neighbouring electrons or protons angular momentum as they are all spinning at the same angles. This throws the electron into a much much bigger shell diameter (remember we are talking of the power inside an atom) as the electron will not fall into the proton so its probability of superposition is out there in the field. It's now called flux. It's pushed out there by pressure (force acting on an area). The electron superposition has fantastic spin speed out there in the field and is invisible to the macroscopic world(the eye) but it is bumping into other particles that enter that field. So because of its interactions with other matter it gives away its position and because of heisenberg's principle it takes on a particle attribute. This attribute is one we acknowledge as matter and its new state imparts its spin (not charge) to the surroundings (other atoms) until it has lossed the speed of angular momentum whereupon it falls back into the mass joining a lower orbit position of normal shell diameter of its original atom. Or at least it tries too, once back among the aligned atoms of the magnet it is once again is elevated by the means I previously described. So you have this pressure exerted on the electron and yet it still has this quality similar to a spring effect which is keeping it tethered to its original atom. So long as all the electrons have the same alignment of their angular momentum they will spring in and out not affecting or crossing or interacting with electrons from the same magnet. until they collide with another atom that is propagating from outside of the magnet. Where upon the the outside atoms are subject to this alignment but because of sheer numbers the field flux can only propagate so far away from the original alignment.

Now some will just not want to hear me, but when Russ has shown you the effects from the large mass of the coil, then you will have to start forming an opinion and challenging your own ideas, until then please be respectful of each other's beliefs.

I think you a cruel man russ bringing this question up before the big big coil build. lol.

This is one of the fundamental reasons you don't want the flux reaching the mass of the opposite component.
Newman states it pg 59-60
I'm stating it here in my own words using my field theory.
i.e. don't let the flux lines from the permanent magnet cut into the mass of the coil only into the the flux lines emanating from the coil.
Why?

This is because you will unalign the atoms and there angular spin from the copper which is keeping the spring (hydraulic Newman) pressure up naturally. You will move the alignment of the angular spins creating a need for more force...more force is more current.
(my spring by the way has extension and compression qualities)

wrap your minds around this (don't take too literally this analogy)
A girl (electron) runs up to a trampoline jumps on it and bounces up in the air she maintains a steady height and rhythm, next to her another girl does the same on another trampoline but neither can see each other, i.e. disregard timing between the two girls. for fun they decide to jump from there trampoline to each others not knowing the other was there but they knew they would instantly be making a return back to there own trampoline ...they do and while in the air the one girl pushes the other they still can't see each other...no real harm done they imparted energy or if they missed in the air they would have landed on the others trampoline. but as they land on the opposite trampoline the same as flux touching the other's mass they can disrupt the bounce (alignment) of the others trampoline (magnet/coil atom alignment) (1) so they have to impart more energy and bounce a few times on the spot to get up energy again to return but this wouldn't take place.In the electrons case it would have returned back to its original trampoline instantly the moment it touched the trampoline (matter) because of the interaction, either in the air touch or as she/it hit the surface of the other trampoline.But it would have lost the energy from the alignment of the others trampoline (atoms alignment). But it's important to NOTE more energy was needed on the destination trampoline because of unalignment. The field would have weakened but only on the scale of the electron this is why more current needs to made to maintain the field
But if you took one girl on the same trampoline and while she was bouncing asked her to push on a trapeze artist (i.e just the flux) to make them swing (spin) each time she landed on her original trampoline she could maintain a rhythm. The pressure in this case would swing one way then the other keeping alignment easily.
Not the best analogy sorry.

(1) this can only happen in the macroscopic world, here the electron is in a quantum state of superposition so it looses spin (not charge) and gets pulled right back to it original atom.

What can you conclude from my thoery,
Well it implies all matter in the universe unless possessing a magnetic alignment of its atoms, is suppressed into a lower energy level than it has the potential to be in.

@Sonnet.

Your first post. 

That's a verry good thought.  The attachments of the atoms / eletrons to springs to spinning things  in the feild is really cool. (I worded it all wrong but I u derstand)    Its deffentaly a way that I can see thinking makes Joes work the same but his is all mechanics . yours is new age understanding.

Its really a good way of looking at it.

It helps show that you can't have crossing feild lines.  That was allways confusing. But I see now how that can be.

The idea that you can ADD to the momentum in a wire with the magnet going past after you "charge" the wire is one key aspect to the device. 
Its more than just the BEMF.  This is noted in the book.  There is allmost no current coming from the BEMF unless the magnet is passing the coil at at 90 dgreese from the wire. ADDing to the movement / alignment of the copper atoms.

Matt and you both have your heads deep in this feild thinking. I think if you 2 could mix Joes mechanical way of thinking in to it,  it could be explained in a way everyone can get it.

Mechanical / quantom / other. 

This would widen the view way above the current understanding.

Verry good stuff guys. I have  high confidence in this progross and way of thinking.

Lost of help coming. We will have to go big at some point to prove the mass concept. And I will be doing this.

~Russ

Russ

The age old question... what is a field?

As Einstein said, The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. The more knowledgeable and diverse your sources the more knowledgeable we may become. One of my sources who is almost unheard of was Karl Schappeller ie. http://www.rexresearch.com/schapp/schapp.htm and "The Physics of the Primary State of Matter". Karl had a unique perspective and he said that "we cannot use what is not present and available for use". Think about that in relation to the field... we cannot utilize what is not present so what is present?.

Let's say we have an electron which is not unlike a very small rock and for some reason a "field" is present which surrounds our rock. How did it get there, why is it present, what is present and what forces could have created this thing we call a "field"?. At which point we are left with the notion that "something" must have induced this field which surrounds our tiny rock we call a particle. Remember we can only use what is present and available for use. Thus we could assume the universe which is full of radiation emitted from every star may have induced this thing we call a "field" which surrounds every particle because it is the only thing present we know of which could produce these results. The result is a perpetual field of force which surrounds every particle and this field must have a reasonable cause because we cannot get something from nothing or something which is not present. It seems obvious a tiny rock we call a particle does not have the means nor the energy to generate this thing we call a field therefore it must be something else, something external to the particle.

It produces a wonderful symmetry doesn't it?. It also merges multiple disciplines such as particle theory, plasma theory, Aether theory and wave theory all into one neat little bundle which actually starts to make sense. As Tesla said, matter has no energy which is not given to it from external sources ie. the universe. As well Karl Schappeller supposedly built a FE device based on his theories which gives him some amount of credibility. Versus other people who seem to have many theories but no success or tangible proof of anything.

Better more diverse sources always yield better results.

Quote

"The Physics of the Primary State of Matter". Karl had a unique perspective and he said that "we cannot use what is not present and available for use".

I like that quote One power it rings true.
But then I thought of nuclear fusion, each atom created was not present until it's created what was true is that a catalyst took place from what was present and available in that scenario with atoms . So the interactions in your field used what was present and available for sure but we should realise there also has to be a catalyst, to bring in changes to the field / or in the field you describe.
What do you think is the catalyst and what is it acting upon?
 I lean towards thinking your catalyst is radiation as you describe but I cannot see that from a permanent magnet. A electromagnet I can.
Can you help me visualise any more?
Regards

@ OnePower. good thoughts there for sure.


I have some side thoughts I'd like to add. Theses are things i have gathered over the last week or more that make more sense of the story.
theses are my reasons why i believe newman's work is spot on. and he was an honest guy trying to do whats right for us all.

" why if Newman 's device worked, why dont we have it now? "

the fact that he came up with his understanding to a point with out ever building the device, he was so confident that he was willing to apply for a patent first. the he build it after the fact when he was asked to prove it works. thats quite incredible. he was 100% sure it would work. no doubts his mined at all. thats something you just dont see much any more.

then it worked after he built a crude version of it... and others credited his work who were well respected and smart in the field.

A lot of people say Newman was trying to get money for his work so "he is just a scam" i'v heard others say.

well he was rich at the time of his invention. He had many other patents including the plastic coated barbell that were bring in a lot of funds. he was good there , great supportable wife, a kid. he was happy it would seem. but very focused for sure. "like laser focused" it was said.

he fought the patent office and spend around 80,000$ in 1980. as well investing 100,000$ in building a prototype(s) thats over 500,000$ in today's money. and for what? he got nothing out if it all. in this time patents were everything. the world of " open source" was not the same as it is now... so he fought for what he thought was his right in America. i dont blame him.

in the process he brought in 30+ people who had credibility and most all of them walked away convinced enough to sigh an affidavit on it working.
now ask... why did not those people not go and build it later? well, they were forced to sigh an NDA... this makes scene. so they cant do anything with it for X years ( 25?)

now he did get patents in other country's so what happen to that opportunity ?

 along the way he was offered by i think it was the Canada ? he was offered "an endless check" .
he asked for the agreement to state that they would build and sell the devices and not to just " sit on it" and denied. so he denied... thats one of the biggest sacrifice for the rest of us. thats so unselfish i can hardly fathom that choice.

so he went to the people. NOTHING came from that. people are too ignorant as Newman said later in his life. 

and then 30 years later He build an even bigger one that did real work and proved on video and in live demonstrations that it could be done ( pumping that much water on his last motor is really incredible to see. i do be leave it worked ezcatly as he said it would)

he also never once changed his thinking from the 1980's all the way to what we saw back in 2013 before he died. he always stated the same FACTS on video. there was NO unclear parts of the story or theory over that 30+ years of time. his "mind was laser focused in deed"

he never praised him self once. he even stated many times that he was willing to take the answer of his tests as agreements or disagreements. no bias at all going on to his work.

All theses things make me beleave deeply in Newman, and i wanted to put all theses thoughts in one place.

and now through my own thinking along with testing and things i have done and conversations i have had, it seems most of my questions are answered in his book. some of theses questions i have herd anyone ever ask before. stuff in my mind  that means only one thing. Newman's right.

i do believe Newman did not understand it all, and he did it from a mechanical thinking. However thats all thats needed to grasp what to do....

and he wrote a book selfishly giving all his work to us all to rediscoverer. we just need to look, think, do, BIG it is...

~Russ 

@ Russ
I second that russ, and take it further he was a genius. He died poor as a martyr to prove his faith in his machine that was going to change the world we live in.
He did in deed prove his faith in his belief.

Sonnet

A permanent magnet could be thought of as a material with the particle/fields constrained to move in a certain way not unlike a conductor constrains the particle/fields of an electric current made of particle/fields to move in a similar way. Thus it is not the particle/fields themselves which produce a magnetic field but the extent of there motion in an external field which produces a disturbance in the external field which we call magnetism. Think of a bobber in a lake and nothing happens until the bobber moves but when it does move it creates waves in the ambient medium which is the water. The waves in the water are equivalent to a magnetic field thus the magnetic field is not something in itself but a property of something already present which has been disturbed in some way. Think about it... how can magnetism not be shielded but only guided through different materials such as iron?. It is because magnetism was never something in itself but a property of something already present. Magnetism is simply an external field disturbance produced when particle/fields move in the external field... the Aether if you will.

Quote

But then I thought of nuclear fusion, each atom created was not present until it's created what was true is that a catalyst took place from what was present and available in that scenario with atoms .

Nuclear fusion and fission are very similar to fossil fuels, fossils fuels were not created because energy and mass are always conserved. What did happen is that plants and animals died and they were transformed under pressure and heat in the Earth into a liquid hydrocarbon. Thus fossils fuels are a renewable resource however the time frame of the transformation is very large constituting millions of years. Do the math... hydrocarbons stored over millions of years released into the atmosphere in a couple hundred years equals a global disaster of epic proportions. It's not the hydrocarbons themselves but the time frame and balance which is the problem. In fusion/fission the heavy elements were formed in stars from lighter elements under intense heat and pressure not unlike fossil fuels. The stars gave up energy to transform matter and when we produce fusion/fission we are simply releasing this same energy produced millions and millions of years ago in some far off star. Thus we can begin to see energy is energy, it is not created or destroyed only transformed.

It can be very confusing for many people because the time frames are very large and the true extent of the transformations are not well understood. It's kind of like you burying a black box in your backyard then a thousand years later someone digs it up and proclaims... Oh my god the ground is creating black boxes!. However we have a very simple premise... energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed and we can only utilize what is present otherwise we are left with the same old dilemma of something being created from nothing which obviously does not work.

@ One power
yes you articulate that very well, I do understand your premise now.
But I still hit a block with a permanent magnet, it sits there not moving on a shelve say..but yet around it emanates a field. It has not perturbed anything..unless you are telling me your field is always moving around the magnet and by this association of the magnet sitting in this pond (more like a sea) moving around the magnet. Is this the scenario you are giving me.
I must add that a moving field around matter does come with new problems. and it sounds like what others have called as well as yourself 'Aether' what force would it be that moves this wave like Aether and why does my permanent magnet on the shelve not have a fluctuating field intensity with the moving Aether. If I shield the flux why does the Aether not creep around my shield like a boat in a harbour is calm from the moving waves. I see the Aether you describe as being able to radiate through matter to fill all voids. If not there would be pockets where my magnet would have no field., but yet I can shield a magnet.
Forgive me, my mind will chew on ideas when sparked by ideas I see as promising. My thirst for understanding.
I think you have some validity to your thoughts but can you rule out my caveats.
Regards

with reference to reply#77
note...when thinking about electrons as having a mass property then how do you deal with the photoelectric effect (which makes a pretty good argument that light comes in packets that have enough "stuffness" to bounce electrons around)?
I put that argument in for the advocates of electrons not having a mass property. but I agree it is contentious. but as I say if you can accept the photoelectric effect please sit back and take a chill pill.
Regards

@ One power
Your answers could ultimately help me understand a caveat in my own theory. So you see I ask and question your replies with pure intentions.
in my reply #79
something suppresses the energy in matter, unless its aligned atoms overcome this suppression.
My belief was that it was gravity, Your Aether could/can replace this view.
The warping of space and time does not bode well with me...but I live with it.
Regards

I will try and explain a field in a different way.
I'll use temperature as its a area i'm comfortable.
You don't exactly touch temperature its a energy transferred through a medium so it fits our field view. but to many of us we state we can feel the heat or cold we give it a mass property, just like my electron some argue is energy and massless...ok hope your with me
So I,ve installed my air conditioner and inside the room I put my air handling unit nice and high. In it is a fan which blows out the cool air.
Now my field is the area of the room and the fan is blowing cold air the chilled molecules including electrons are pushed out over a area by a force acting on them (fan) if I take a vector of the room and take the temperature there I will start to build a picture of the temperature field and this field is changing.
cold air falls and heat rises so a catalyst is happening and convection is that force created. A force on my molecules. I can feel a mass property of temperature that I could argue has mass, it's moving, its pushing but what is it really....its energy.
At every point in that room (field) I can take a reference and map the data in a vector. adding, multiplying etc...a field in the real sense of the word is maths.....if you said to me dave whats at this point in the room (field) I could only give you data.I could very easily give you a probability of the temperature range at that point and if I boost the energy in the AC unit the field will change dynamically..and you may say but dave I feel it.
I hope this helps you to visualize it more and that's what this post is for purely creating a picture in your minds eye of a field and again not to take it literally.
Regards

notes:

https://sci-hub.cc/10.1109/IPEMC.2012.6259118

"Therefore, the most
effective way to reduce the total parasitic capacitance is to
minimize the layer-to-layer capacitance"

"Each time the switch in the boost converter turns-on, the
parasitic capacitance of the inductor must be charged to the
input voltage, which causes a positive spike in the inductor
current"

"During turn-off, the parasitic capacitance of the inductor
must be charged in the opposite direction, which is why the
spike at turn-off is negative"

"The larger the self-capacitance of the inductor, the larger
the spikes at turn-on and turn-off, and longer the duration of
the transient process after the switching."

"The converter with
conventionally winded inductor had larger oscillations after
each switching, which can lead to larger electromagnetic
emissions,"

so i think for us... more capacitance is good. but if we space the wire out we lose inductance. so there is a balance. i'm not sure what way to lean yet.
the book might tell me :)

~Russ

because its a very important visual

Quote from ~Russ on November 8th, 2017, 05:17 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iT7nNwu_qI

So what you need is a coil with a lot of windings of very small gauge to build the magnetic field in the inductor, and some way of shunting the current away quickly and put it to good use when that magnetic field collapses. How about a bifilar coil, one with the small gauge wire, one with the large gauge?

I was toying with the idea of creating a 'toroidal bifilar' coil... a large gauge wire fully-wrapped with a small gauge wire, and the whole thing wrapped into a coil like a flat bifilar. A toroidal coil concentrates its magnetic field inside the coil. When the small gauge wire is energized, it'll concentrate the magnetic field into the large gauge wire. When the magnetic field collapses, the large gauge wire can shunt that current away quickly.

So use high voltage / low current to energize the small-gauge winding, short it, and let it ring down... harvesting current in the larger-gauge wire the whole time.

Quote from sonnet on November 9th, 2017, 11:53 AM

@ One power
yes you articulate that very well, I do understand your premise now.
But I still hit a block with a permanent magnet, it sits there not moving on a shelve say..but yet around it emanates a field. It has not perturbed anything..

Actually, it has perturbed the quantum vacuum... it's the same sort of vacuum polarization that occurs in the nucleus of every atom, which is why all matter has an inherent magnetism... usually diamagnetic, although certain atomic arrangements have a stronger ferromagnetic field.

Magnets are temporal in nature due to time, space and matter all being weakly coupled. Hence permanent magnets have a simultaneous (time-shifted) energy deficit and surplus (which we imprint upon them during magnetization) due to the aforementioned vacuum polarization. This is what generates the magnetic field.

Quote from sonnet on November 9th, 2017, 11:53 AM

unless you are telling me your field is always moving around the magnet

Magnetic fields have momentum (E² = p² c² + m² c⁴, thus p = E/c), so draw your own conclusions.

Quote from sonnet on November 9th, 2017, 11:53 AM

and by this association of the magnet sitting in this pond (more like a sea) moving around the magnet. Is this the scenario you are giving me.
I must add that a moving field around matter does come with new problems. and it sounds like what others have called as well as yourself 'Aether' what force would it be that moves this wave like Aether

The quantum vacuum is a scalar field, it's not 'moving' so much as it's continually undergoing constructive and destructive interference across its wide frequency band.

Quote from sonnet on November 9th, 2017, 11:53 AM

and why does my permanent magnet on the shelve not have a fluctuating field intensity with the moving Aether.

Because the quantum vacuum fluctuations are very tiny... but with a sufficiently large fluctuation, you would see your magnet's field intensity fluctuate. You can simulate this by fluctuating the local field radiation pressure of the quantum vacuum yourself... with a coil placed next to your magnet. You'll note as you fluctuate the current to the coil, the Bloch wall of the magnet moves... you're fluctuating your magnet's field intensity.

Quote from sonnet on November 9th, 2017, 11:53 AM

If I shield the flux why does the Aether not creep around my shield like a boat in a harbour is calm from the moving waves. I see the Aether you describe as being able to radiate through matter to fill all voids. If not there would be pockets where my magnet would have no field., but yet I can shield a magnet.

You can't really 'shield' magnetic flux, just as you cannot 'shield' gravity... you can divert magnetic flux. The only realistic way to 'shield' magnetic flux (in this case, the field radiation pressure of the quantum vacuum) is via a Casimir cavity, in which case the flux is excluded from the interior of the cavity by dint of the fact that it's diverted at the periphery of the cavity all round by the cavity walls.

Most all of the story is there.

https://youtu.be/30V6fBnXtkY

Fantastic watch. So honist. This man might be one of the smartest persons I know to date.

~Russ

Quote from Cycle on November 9th, 2017, 07:27 PM

So what you need is a coil with a lot of windings of very small gauge to build the magnetic field in the inductor, and some way of shunting the current away quickly and put it to good use when that magnetic field collapses.

...

So use high voltage / low current to energize the small-gauge winding, short it, and let it ring down... harvesting current in the larger-gauge wire the whole time.

I think this is the correct approach, but we can't be too aggressive in this respect.  The dielectric strength of the insulating material must be considered.  I sent Russ some wire I purchased that claims to be able to withstand several thousand volts; if accurate, putting 2000 volts into a coil shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Going beyond this could be risky as it would be quite difficult to detect if you had arcing that has blown a hole through the insulation, especially with several hundred pounds of wire.

Quote from Cycle on November 9th, 2017, 08:10 PM

Magnetic fields have momentum (E² = p² c² + m² c⁴, thus p = E/c), so draw your own conclusions.

I'm not sure where you found this information, but I have suspected it to be true for quite some time.  A magnetic field put into motion does attempt to stay in motion.  It does not instantly dissipate.  It also appears to be true that a static magnetic field prefers to stay static if not overcome by external forces.  This is the essence of a gyroscope or spinning entity--once spun up, the flywheel effect directly correlates to inertia.  Evostars and I did a bunch of investigation in regards to a magnetic vortex ring that could be fired like a cannon and penetrates most any obstacle.  Our theory was that if you could make these magnetic vortex rings and fire them through a pancake style coil, the Lenz effect could be completely eliminated--the load could in no way interact with the source.

Yes I also think a permanent magnet has a field motionless. This is evidence by the force of attraction between two stationary magnets.

The amplidyne had large scale amps that did not result in heat, the reason is explored by GE and the inventor Alexanderson  and in some rare textbooks in the period. The brushed are shorted and losses that would otherwise go to eddy currents from high resistance are low resistance in the rotating magnetic field mostly independent of the mass.     

Quote from Matt Watts on November 9th, 2017, 09:50 PM

I'm not sure where you found this information, but I have suspected it to be true for quite some time.  A magnetic field put into motion does attempt to stay in motion.  It does not instantly dissipate.  It also appears to be true that a static magnetic field prefers to stay static if not overcome by external forces.  This is the essence of a gyroscope or spinning entity--once spun up, the flywheel effect directly correlates to inertia.

Not quite correct. Even a static magnetic field from a permanent magnet has momentum (and thus motion, since the existence of momentum is predicated upon the existence of motion), which is why the Feynman Disc Paradox experimental setup works the way it does.

The answer as to why is contained within your very reply above... think in terms of electrons in orbit about their nuclei (the progenitors of the magnetic field of a permanent magnet) as gyroscopes. The term 'static magnetic field' doesn't denote that it's motionless, merely that the magnetic field comes from a static source such as a ferromagnet rather than a driven source such as a coil.

Also, don't confuse inertia and momentum... inertia (resistance to change in the state of motion, even if that state of motion is 'motionless') is not a transferable property, whereas momentum (the quantification of motion) is.

Quote from ~Russ on November 9th, 2017, 08:18 PM

Fantastic watch. So honist. This man might be one of the smartest persons I know to date.

Russ, if you can build the motor shown in that video, pump water under pressure with a string of dead batteries and show the current flowing backwards, I will send you a valid check in the amount of $10,000.  Joe said no one but him could do it, I think he's wrong there.

Ooohh! Just had a thought related to the Feynman Disc Paradox... if we could create a machine such that we're charging one coil to build the magnetic field, then shorting one-half the coil to a discharged capacitor, we'd get the same effect... an attempt by the system to conserve the angular momentum of the magnetic field, imparting motion.

So the stator and rotor would be wired during charging as one giant coil, then somehow switch it up so that only the rotor gets discharged.

Now alternate that. We're shuttling voltage back and forth, with the only losses being that of resistance heating, and the end result being a rotating vector force upon the rotor.

If my thinking is correct, the Newman machine was a giant take on a Feynman Disc.