Difference between revisions of "Memory Lane"

From S.H.O.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 65: Line 65:
 
My model can be compared/contrasted to the model proposed by Cyril W. Smith. To compare, both of our models propose extracting kinetic energy from the atom by means of interaction of charges with the vector potential. To contrast, in Smith's model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is <math>-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})</math><ref>http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13908</ref>, 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>. Therefore, in comparing the models, they both predict the same voltage anomaly along any closed path where Kirchhoff's First Law is obeyed. However, in contrasting the models, they differ in their predictions of the force distributions along said paths. The additional force predicted by Smith depends on the variation of the vector potential as the charge travels through space at some given velocity. Smith's force model is invalid for the reason that when the extra force is 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.
 
My model can be compared/contrasted to the model proposed by Cyril W. Smith. To compare, both of our models propose extracting kinetic energy from the atom by means of interaction of charges with the vector potential. To contrast, in Smith's model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is <math>-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})</math><ref>http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13908</ref>, 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>. Therefore, in comparing the models, they both predict the same voltage anomaly along any closed path where Kirchhoff's First Law is obeyed. However, in contrasting the models, they differ in their predictions of the force distributions along said paths. The additional force predicted by Smith depends on the variation of the vector potential as the charge travels through space at some given velocity. Smith's force model is invalid for the reason that when the extra force is 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.
  
−
The additional force predicted by my model depends on variation of charge velocity subject to a given Magnetic Vector Potential, and the issue with that 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> (excluding changes of the potentials <math>\varphi</math> and <math>\mathbf{A}</math>). The interaction energy <math>\left[ q \varphi - q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v} \right]</math> connected to a charge multiplied by the Lorentz factor of that charge <math>\gamma</math> equals the charge's value <math>q</math> multiplied by the electric scalar potential <math>\varphi'</math> that the said charge 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>. Therefore, changes of the interaction energy of a charge (corrected for a Lorentz boost to the charge's rest frame) can be thought of as a conversion of that charge's rest mass, which is a covariant quantity<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_covariance</ref>. The predicted time-averaged power <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}</math> from the point of view of a separate inertial observer remains independent of the model for the velocity chosen, as long the time-averaged acceleration is computed over a sufficiently long time interval.
+
The additional force predicted by my model depends on variation of charge velocity subject to a given Magnetic Vector Potential, and the issue with that 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 equal to 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> (excluding changes of the potentials <math>\varphi</math> and <math>\mathbf{A}</math>). The interaction energy <math>\left[ q \varphi - q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v} \right]</math> connected to a charge multiplied by the Lorentz factor of that charge <math>\gamma</math> equals the charge's value <math>q</math> multiplied by the electric scalar potential <math>\varphi'</math> that the said charge 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>. Therefore, changes of the interaction energy of a charge (corrected for a Lorentz boost to the charge's rest frame) can be thought of as a conversion of that charge's rest mass, which is a covariant quantity<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_covariance</ref>. The predicted time-averaged power <math>q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}</math> from the point of view of a separate inertial observer remains independent of the model for the velocity chosen, as long the time-averaged acceleration is computed over a sufficiently long time interval.
  
 
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 name="The Marinov Generator">http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13897</ref>. In Smith's model, the anomalous 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 the path integral of the force, whereas my model requires the time integral of the power. To compare the models, the anomalous work done on the charges should be the same for both. Therefore, as long as the circuit obeys Kirchhoff's First Law and the path integral calculation includes all segments where the force anomaly is expected to take place, both models should agree on the various voltage predictions that were validated in various setups in Smith's experiments with his "Marinov Generator"<ref name="The Marinov Generator"/>.
 
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 name="The Marinov Generator">http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13897</ref>. In Smith's model, the anomalous 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 the path integral of the force, whereas my model requires the time integral of the power. To compare the models, the anomalous work done on the charges should be the same for both. Therefore, as long as the circuit obeys Kirchhoff's First Law and the path integral calculation includes all segments where the force anomaly is expected to take place, both models should agree on the various voltage predictions that were validated in various setups in Smith's experiments with his "Marinov Generator"<ref name="The Marinov Generator"/>.

Revision as of 14:53, 14 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)

Date: March 14, 2016

Description: The Hertzian EM Hypothesis

Filename: 00029.MTS

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

Date: 2016.08.08

Description 1: New S.H.O. Coil Design + Explanation of Magnetic Energy

Description 2: Explanation of Magnetic Energy (Continued) + Future Outlook on Project

Filename 1: 00005.MTS

Filename 2: 00006.MTS

Original Clip 1: https://youtu.be/E1_mma3xWfU

Original Clip 2: https://youtu.be/3MiSP_K-enc

Music: Part Time Rocket Pilot by TeknoAXE http://teknoaxe.com/Link_Code_2.php?q=618 (Creative Commons)

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

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 nine years ago to this day, on November 4, 2007[1]. Within months, 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 been 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].

Any actual Newman Energy Machine 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], and because it equals the negative of the rate of change of the velocity-dependent electromagnetic potential energy of charge [math]q[/math] over time due to changes of charge velocity [math]\mathbf{v}[/math], the source of energy extracted from in deriving the associated power is evident. 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 a positive level of potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields, manifesting due to changes in charge velocity, as well as a negative level of potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion, manifesting due to changes of charge position. Conversely, a negative value of [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] corresponds to negative mutual inductance, or oppositional magnetic disalignment, which implies a negative level of potential energy potential energy remaining for the production of electromagnetic energy via discharging magnetic fields, manifesting due to changes in charge velocity, as well as a positive level of potential energy remaining for the production of kinetic energy from magnetic attraction or repulsion, manifesting due to changes of charge position.

[math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v}[/math] therefore represents "stored magnetic energy", which serves as a go-between for two propagating-type energies which are electromagnetic energy and kinetic energy. It represents the potential energy to generate electromagnetic energy (and/or kinetic energy) through inductive collapse of magnetic fields onto conductors, or alternatively, it represents the magnetic energy that was converted from kinetic energy (and/or electromagnetic energy). In this sense, it is a state function. However, the fact that this "magnetic potential energy" can change for two separate reasons, one due to changes of velocity, and another due to changes of position, one transfer occurring at the expense of the other, means that it is also the sum of two process functions. This allows continual net transfer of energy from kinetic energy to electromagnetic energy, or vice versa, without continually accumulating stored magnetic energy. In principle, magnets could be used to produce electromagnetic energy from kinetic energy in the environment, or rather, energy within the environment - even within atoms themselves, without having to expend the magnetic field in the process. In other words, magnetic fields are not so much a source of energy to be depleted as they are method of converting energy from one form to another, as permitted by the correctly-expressed laws of electromagnetics. Beside converting kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy, it is possible for magnetic fields to convert between rotational and translational forms of electron kinetic energy embedded in matter[11], as occurs between permanent magnets[12].

As per the video above or to the left of this paragraph, titled "IMAGINE this FLAT coil folded into an S" (@ 15:58-25:35), my prediction for the S.H.O. Drive is that permanent magnets initially set to rotation by an external force will transduce some of their internal (kinetic) energy onto electrons embedded in copper windings of the S.H.O. Coils, following which, the magnetic fields of the induced current will deflect some of the rotational kinetic energy of the electrons of the permanent magnets to into becoming translational energy of electrons, permitting angular acceleration of the magnetic domains of the permanents magnets around a shaft in the same direction that the magnets were originally set into motion, and that is possible due to the special geometry and positioning of the S.H.O. Coils and the permanent magnets. Any other units of induced energy will be transferred back to the permanent magnets' internal (kinetic) energy through electromagnetic induction, perform work on an attached mechanical and/or electrical load, or be dissipated as a parasitic resistance loss.

My model can be compared/contrasted to the model proposed by Cyril W. Smith. To compare, both of our models propose extracting kinetic energy from the atom by means of interaction of charges with the vector potential. To contrast, in Smith's model the new term added to the standard Lorentz force is [math]-q\nabla_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v})[/math][13], 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]. Therefore, in comparing the models, they both predict the same voltage anomaly along any closed path where Kirchhoff's First Law is obeyed. However, in contrasting the models, they differ in their predictions of the force distributions along said paths. The additional force predicted by Smith depends on the variation of the vector potential as the charge travels through space at some given velocity. Smith's force model is invalid for the reason that when the extra force is 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.

The additional force predicted by my model depends on variation of charge velocity subject to a given Magnetic Vector Potential, and the issue with that 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)[14] rather than the drift velocity (< 1 mm/s)[14], 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)[14], 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 equal to 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] (excluding changes of the potentials [math]\varphi[/math] and [math]\mathbf{A}[/math]). The interaction energy [math]\left[ q \varphi - q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{v} \right][/math] connected to a charge multiplied by the Lorentz factor of that charge [math]\gamma[/math] equals the charge's value [math]q[/math] multiplied by the electric scalar potential [math]\varphi'[/math] that the said charge observes in its own rest frame[15][16]. Therefore, changes of the interaction energy of a charge (corrected for a Lorentz boost to the charge's rest frame) can be thought of as a conversion of that charge's rest mass, which is a covariant quantity[17]. The predicted time-averaged power [math]q\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{a}[/math] from the point of view of a separate inertial observer remains independent of the model for the velocity chosen, as long the time-averaged acceleration is computed over a sufficiently long time interval.

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[18]. In Smith's model, the anomalous 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 the path integral of the force, whereas my model requires the time integral of the power. To compare the models, the anomalous work done on the charges should be the same for both. Therefore, as long as the circuit obeys Kirchhoff's First Law and the path integral calculation includes all segments where the force anomaly is expected to take place, both models should agree on the various voltage predictions that were validated in various setups in Smith's experiments with his "Marinov Generator"[18].

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. ↑ http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35565/extract-energy-from-magnets
  12. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnetic_field/Archive_4#Is_discussion_about_whether_magnetic_fields_do_work_necessary.3F
  13. ↑ http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=13908
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 http://wiki.c2.com/?SpeedOfElectrons
  15. ↑ http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/ScalarEM/J%20Konopinski%20-%20What%20the%20Electromagnetic%20Vector%20Potential%20Describes%20-%20ajp_46_499_78.pdf
  16. ↑ https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307124.pdf
  17. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_covariance
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 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=1413"