Difference between revisions of "Memory Lane"

From S.H.O.
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Ideas Inspired from the Syntheses of Other Ideas (2000's to present))
(→‎Ideas Inspired from the Syntheses of Other Ideas (2000's to present))
Line 39: Line 39:
 
Consider that a '''positive value of''' <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> corresponds to positive mutual inductance, or positive magnetic alignment, which implies positive potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields and a negative potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion. Conversely, a '''negative value of''' <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> corresponds to negative mutual inductance, or oppositional magnetic disalignment, which implies negative potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields and a positive potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion. Thus, an '''increasing value''' of <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> represents net kinetic work derived from electromagnetic energy (excluding electrostatic potential energy), while a '''decrease value''' of <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> represents the production of net electromagnetic work (excluding electrostatic work) derived from kinetic energy. <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> is therefore an energy ''conversion'' term, ''not an energy storage term''.
 
Consider that a '''positive value of''' <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> corresponds to positive mutual inductance, or positive magnetic alignment, which implies positive potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields and a negative potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion. Conversely, a '''negative value of''' <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> corresponds to negative mutual inductance, or oppositional magnetic disalignment, which implies negative potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields and a positive potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion. Thus, an '''increasing value''' of <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> represents net kinetic work derived from electromagnetic energy (excluding electrostatic potential energy), while a '''decrease value''' of <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> represents the production of net electromagnetic work (excluding electrostatic work) derived from kinetic energy. <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> is therefore an energy ''conversion'' term, ''not an energy storage term''.
  
−
My model can be compared/contrasted to the model proposed by Cyril W. Smith. In his model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is <math>-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})</math>, whereas in my model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is <math>q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})</math> whose curl in fact the same, and that is <math>\nabla\times\left(-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})\right) = \nabla\times\left(q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})\right)</math>. So in both cases, an anomalous force occurs. They are not the same though. The additional force predicted by Smith depends on the variation of the vector potential as the charge travels through space at some given velocity. However, the additional force predicted by my model depends on variation of charge velocity subject to a given Magnetic Vector Potential. Smith's force model is invalid for the reason that when added to the Lorentz force, the total force yields no attraction between two parallel currents of arbitrarily large length. My model on the other hand has a different, and probably addressable, issue. That issue is, "What velocity should be a part of the calculation for this new force?" In the case of free electrons in conductive metal, one could argue that it should be the thermal velocity (around 100,000 m/s)<ref name="Speed Of Electrons">http://wiki.c2.com/?SpeedOfElectrons</ref> rather than the drift velocity (< 1 mm/s)<ref name="Speed Of Electrons"/>, while for electrons trapped in atomic orbitals, which are responsible for magnetism in certain materials, one may argue that the velocity one should choose is much larger (> 2 million m/s)<ref name="Speed Of Electrons"/>, or if the underlying charges are the result of gyroscopic particles like Joseph Westley Newman says, one may argue that the velocity one should choose should have a magnitude of the speed of light, in which case the predicted force anomaly would actually be the reaction force of the action force one would predict from the time-variation of the mass associated with the interaction energy <math>\left[ q \varphi - q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v} \right]/c^2</math>, which when multiplied by the Lorentz factor <math>\gamma</math> equals the charge's value <math>q</math> multiplied by the electric scalar potential <math>\varphi'</math> that a charge <math>q</math> observes in its own rest frame<ref>http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/ScalarEM/J%20Konopinski%20-%20What%20the%20Electromagnetic%20Vector%20Potential%20Describes%20-%20ajp_46_499_78.pdf</ref><ref>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307124.pdf</ref> and can therefore be associated with a conversion of its rest mass, which is covariant<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_covariance</ref>. The predicted average power <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}</math> remains unaffected by the model for the velocity chosen, as long the average acceleration is computed over a sufficiently long time interval. The result is that regardless of the model for the velocity chosen, in the end an increasing <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> '''still represents a net conversion of energy''' from electromagnetic energy to kinetic energy. If <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> is '''indeed''' an energy ''conversion'' term, ''not an energy storage term'', then <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> represents a conversion of bounded energy (i.e. mass) into unbounded energy (i.e. kinetic energy). One may say the same for <math>-q\varphi</math>.
+
My model can be compared/contrasted to the model proposed by Cyril W. Smith. In his model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is <math>-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})</math>, whereas in my model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is <math>q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})</math> whose curl in fact the same, and that is <math>\nabla\times\left(-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})\right) = \nabla\times\left(q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})\right)</math>. So in both cases, an anomalous force occurs. They are not the same though. The additional force predicted by Smith depends on the variation of the vector potential as the charge travels through space at some given velocity. However, the additional force predicted by my model depends on variation of charge velocity subject to a given Magnetic Vector Potential. Smith's force model is invalid for the reason that when added to the Lorentz force, the total force yields no attraction between two parallel currents of arbitrarily large length. My model on the other hand has a different, and probably addressable, issue. That issue is, "What velocity should be a part of the calculation for this new force?" In the case of free electrons in conductive metal, one could argue that it should be the thermal velocity (around 100,000 m/s)<ref name="Speed Of Electrons">http://wiki.c2.com/?SpeedOfElectrons</ref> rather than the drift velocity (< 1 mm/s)<ref name="Speed Of Electrons"/>, while for electrons trapped in atomic orbitals, which are responsible for magnetism in certain materials, one may argue that the velocity one should choose is much larger (> 2 million m/s)<ref name="Speed Of Electrons"/>, or if the underlying charges are the result of gyroscopic particles like Joseph Westley Newman says, one may argue that the velocity one should choose should have a magnitude of the speed of light, in which case the predicted force anomaly would actually be the reaction force of the action force one would predict from the time-variation of the mass associated with the interaction energy <math>\left[ q \varphi - q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v} \right]/c^2</math>B (excluding changes of the potentials <math>\varphi</math> and <math>\mathbf{A}</math>), which when multiplied by the Lorentz factor <math>\gamma</math> equals the charge's value <math>q</math> multiplied by the electric scalar potential <math>\varphi'</math> that a charge <math>q</math> observes in its own rest frame<ref>http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/ScalarEM/J%20Konopinski%20-%20What%20the%20Electromagnetic%20Vector%20Potential%20Describes%20-%20ajp_46_499_78.pdf</ref><ref>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307124.pdf</ref> and can therefore be associated with a conversion of its rest mass, which is covariant<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_covariance</ref>. The predicted average power <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}</math> remains unaffected by the model for the velocity chosen, as long the average acceleration is computed over a sufficiently long time interval. The result is that regardless of the model for the velocity chosen, in the end an increasing <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> '''still represents a net conversion of energy''' from electromagnetic energy to kinetic energy. If <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> is '''indeed''' an energy ''conversion'' term, ''not an energy storage term'', then <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}</math> represents a conversion of bounded energy (i.e. mass) into unbounded energy (i.e. kinetic energy). One may say the same for <math>-q\varphi</math>.
  
 
The associated work done by the additional force has been validated by Smith in one of his experiments where he runs a variant of the Marinov motor ''as a generator''<ref>http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13897</ref>. In his model, the work is done as the charge is displaced from a region where Magnetic Vector Potential has one value to a point where the vector potential has a different value. In my model, the anomalous work is done on the charge the very moment when the charge is accelerating. Smith's model requires path integral of the force, whereas my model requires the time integral of the power. In both cases, the volt meter should give the same reading as in his experiments with his "Marinov Generator", and the anomalous work done per charge should be the same between them.
 
The associated work done by the additional force has been validated by Smith in one of his experiments where he runs a variant of the Marinov motor ''as a generator''<ref>http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13897</ref>. In his model, the work is done as the charge is displaced from a region where Magnetic Vector Potential has one value to a point where the vector potential has a different value. In my model, the anomalous work is done on the charge the very moment when the charge is accelerating. Smith's model requires path integral of the force, whereas my model requires the time integral of the power. In both cases, the volt meter should give the same reading as in his experiments with his "Marinov Generator", and the anomalous work done per charge should be the same between them.

Revision as of 18:12, 4 November 2016

At the Memory Lane, the discoveries and efforts leading up to the S.H.O. Drive are cataloged.

Comment Record

The scope of the Memory Lane will be contingent on whether S.H.O. Drive works or not as well as depending on how the public responds to it. Sincerely, S.H.O. talk 14:00, 4 November 2016 (PDT)

Early Exposure to Science (In the 1990's)

Quasi-scientific Influences (In the 2000's)

Ideas Inspired from the Syntheses of Other Ideas (2000's to present)

Prior to development of the S.H.O. Drive, I was making electric motors, which I (loosely and erroneously) referred to as "Newman Motors", although none of them could be considered an actual replication of Joseph Westley Newman's Energy Machine[1]. I originally heard about Joseph Westley Newman's Energy Machine back on November 4, 2007[1]. Years ago, I produced many very simple electric motor devices with my limited understanding of the concepts put forth by Joseph Newman[1] in his book, the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman[2][3][4].

Due to the complexity of the commutator design of Newman's Energy Machine, few have able to construct their devices in the way that the inventor, Joseph Westley Newman, describes in his book. Even fewer built a Newman Energy Machine large enough to possess a sufficiently large Magnetic Vector Potential in order to operate as Newman claims. Joseph Newman does not mention the vector potential himself, but one of his endorsers, Robert Joseph Matherne, did so[5]. The Magnetic Vector Potential due to the permanent magnets inside Newman motors becomes signficant due to an alignment of a great number of bound electron supercurrents in atomic matter. These atomic supercurrents are accurately described by the work of Dr. Randell Lee Mills[6], who does not himself support Newman's theory but nevertheless is as persistent and determined as Joseph Westley Newman in challenging many standard assumptions of 20th Century physics[7], while being much more competent in many areas[8][9].

Date: March 14, 2016

Description: The Hertzian EM Hypothesis

Filename: 00029.MTS

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_p93xnAko

Actual Newman Energy Machines depended on a very large magnet, and it turns out that the Magnetic Vector Potential [math]\mathbf{A} = \vec A[/math] scales with the size of the magnet even if the peak magnetic flux density [math]\mathbf{B} = \vec B[/math] does not. This year (2016), I proposed a force acting on changing current densities subject to a Magnetic Vector Potential. With the positive [math]x[/math] Cartesian direction defined as having parallel orientation to the instaneous velocity [math]\mathbf{v}[/math] of charge [math]q[/math], this extra force is [math]q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}) = q\left[ \mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}/|\mathbf{v}| \right] \mathbf{\hat{v}} = q\left[ A_x \frac{∂v_x}{∂x} + A_y \frac{∂v_y}{∂x} + A_z \frac{∂v_z}{∂x} \right] \mathbf{e}_x = q(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a})\mathbf{v} / |\mathbf{v}|^2[/math] and exists due to the acceleration of a charge subject to a Magnetic Vector Potential[10]. The associated power is [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}[/math], which is the rate of change of the velocity-dependent electromagnetic potential over time due to changes of charge velocity. The "overunity" feature of actual Newman Energy Machines arises due to the different value of the external Magnetic Vector Potential during the coil charging phase versus said vector potential during the coil discharging phase.

Consider that a positive value of [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] corresponds to positive mutual inductance, or positive magnetic alignment, which implies positive potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields and a negative potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion. Conversely, a negative value of [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] corresponds to negative mutual inductance, or oppositional magnetic disalignment, which implies negative potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields and a positive potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion. Thus, an increasing value of [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] represents net kinetic work derived from electromagnetic energy (excluding electrostatic potential energy), while a decrease value of [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] represents the production of net electromagnetic work (excluding electrostatic work) derived from kinetic energy. [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] is therefore an energy conversion term, not an energy storage term.

My model can be compared/contrasted to the model proposed by Cyril W. Smith. In his model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is [math]-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})[/math], whereas in my model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is [math]q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})[/math] whose curl in fact the same, and that is [math]\nabla\times\left(-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})\right) = \nabla\times\left(q\nabla_\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})\right)[/math]. So in both cases, an anomalous force occurs. They are not the same though. The additional force predicted by Smith depends on the variation of the vector potential as the charge travels through space at some given velocity. However, the additional force predicted by my model depends on variation of charge velocity subject to a given Magnetic Vector Potential. Smith's force model is invalid for the reason that when added to the Lorentz force, the total force yields no attraction between two parallel currents of arbitrarily large length. My model on the other hand has a different, and probably addressable, issue. That issue is, "What velocity should be a part of the calculation for this new force?" In the case of free electrons in conductive metal, one could argue that it should be the thermal velocity (around 100,000 m/s)[11] rather than the drift velocity (< 1 mm/s)[11], while for electrons trapped in atomic orbitals, which are responsible for magnetism in certain materials, one may argue that the velocity one should choose is much larger (> 2 million m/s)[11], or if the underlying charges are the result of gyroscopic particles like Joseph Westley Newman says, one may argue that the velocity one should choose should have a magnitude of the speed of light, in which case the predicted force anomaly would actually be the reaction force of the action force one would predict from the time-variation of the mass associated with the interaction energy [math]\left[ q \varphi - q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v} \right]/c^2[/math]B (excluding changes of the potentials [math]\varphi[/math] and [math]\mathbf{A}[/math]), which when multiplied by the Lorentz factor [math]\gamma[/math] equals the charge's value [math]q[/math] multiplied by the electric scalar potential [math]\varphi'[/math] that a charge [math]q[/math] observes in its own rest frame[12][13] and can therefore be associated with a conversion of its rest mass, which is covariant[14]. The predicted average power [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}[/math] remains unaffected by the model for the velocity chosen, as long the average acceleration is computed over a sufficiently long time interval. The result is that regardless of the model for the velocity chosen, in the end an increasing [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] still represents a net conversion of energy from electromagnetic energy to kinetic energy. If [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] is indeed an energy conversion term, not an energy storage term, then [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] represents a conversion of bounded energy (i.e. mass) into unbounded energy (i.e. kinetic energy). One may say the same for [math]-q\varphi[/math].

The associated work done by the additional force has been validated by Smith in one of his experiments where he runs a variant of the Marinov motor as a generator[15]. In his model, the work is done as the charge is displaced from a region where Magnetic Vector Potential has one value to a point where the vector potential has a different value. In my model, the anomalous work is done on the charge the very moment when the charge is accelerating. Smith's model requires path integral of the force, whereas my model requires the time integral of the power. In both cases, the volt meter should give the same reading as in his experiments with his "Marinov Generator", and the anomalous work done per charge should be the same between them.

While this synthesis of ideas remains a work in progress, its current level of development is sufficient to justify an experiment which will either validate or invalidate the concept of a S.H.O. Drive. Sincerely, S.H.O. talk 14:00, 4 November 2016 (PDT)

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2506654B08626453
  2. ↑ http://www.filefactory.com/file/3nz5dm2ub74l/Newman.pdf
  3. ↑ https://archive.org/details/TheEnergyMachineOfJosephNewman8thEdition
  4. ↑ https://archive.org/download/TheEnergyMachineOfJosephNewman8thEdition/The%20Energy%20Machine%20of%20Joseph%20Newman%208th%20Edition.pdf
  5. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20030604043823/http://www.josephnewman.com/A_New_Paradigm.html
  6. ↑ http://millsian.com/resources.shtml
  7. ↑ http://brilliantlightpower.com/theory-overview/
  8. ↑ http://brilliantlightpower.com/management/
  9. ↑ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LDVWJ0I/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
  10. ↑ http://www.sho.wiki/now/Electromagnetic_Potentials
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 http://wiki.c2.com/?SpeedOfElectrons
  12. ↑ http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/ScalarEM/J%20Konopinski%20-%20What%20the%20Electromagnetic%20Vector%20Potential%20Describes%20-%20ajp_46_499_78.pdf
  13. ↑ https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307124.pdf
  14. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_covariance
  15. ↑ http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13897

See also

Site map

HQ ● Glossary ● April 2016 Presentation

Retrieved from "http://www.sho.wiki/index.php?title=Memory_Lane&oldid=1331"