top

Magnetic field observation...

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development    Page 1 of 1

Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:03 pm PostPost subject: Magnetic field observation...
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Hi guys,

As I said in another post i've been lurking around in the ocpmm arena for a while now, I saw Al's videos from the beginning when first posted on youtube, and was impressed. I think the behaviour of the rig is genuine, and keen to see someone else achieve it too.

(Jeez the looneys really came out of the woodwork on YT eh? LOL)

Anyways, I wanted to start a thread for my own replication and to mention a phenomena theory that has been going round in my head, which might explain some of the weird interactions found and also ties in with the reversing steel ball experiment by sinkscience on YT, where a revolving metal ball in a spinning field (of a rotor) suddenly reverses direction and runs AGW above a certain rpms...

Anyway...

The field - or bubble as some call it - when accelerated, may exhibit elastic behaviour. Think of this, if you had a soap bubble on a stick, then spun round with the bubble at the end of the stick, on the edge of the rotational axis, the bubble would surely deform, as in the mass of the bubble would lag behind the end of the stick, making a tear-drop shape, until the bubble reaches a uniform speed, then its shape should almost return to normal, finally becoming normal when rotation has ceased.

Try making a bubble using a bubble-blower tub and loop like when we were kids, by moving the bubble hoop sideways as you rotate on the spot - the bubble forms but bulges out of the rear of the wee hoop...

It would also deform the other way during deceleration.

So is it possible that the fields of the rotor and stator mags are being bent out of shape such that as the point of the teardrop of one field approaches another bubble's fattened rear end going the other way, will exhibit a slight attraction then a more forceful repulsion....i.e. the fields at the edge of the rotor have their shape changed just by being spun, and at certain speeds may exhibit little or no "reach" until it starts to slow down again, after all we are spinning a collection of already spinning and orbiting electron/proton pairs, which have mass, therefore are subject to rotational forces applied to their frame of reference - the rotor or stator.


Also check out my stator mag idea (just an idea) which curiously would have the moving bubble shape already - just food for thought. If only you could get a custom magnet made with that shape for the poles - maybe you can...



[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:33 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Another nice insight and description. Thanks evilscotsman and welcome aboard.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:39 pm PostPost subject:
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I have a theory for the reversal of rotation in "AGW", its like a stroboscopic effect, the rotor field - as it spins, begins to exceed the ability of the rotor's field mass to keep up, slip occurs, then when spun backwards (AGW) it "sees" an attraction point, that point appears to have moved backwards relative to the stator's field, so it is attracted to the field behind the one that escaped past it, giving a sync'ed reverse rotation. Like when strobe lights shine on a spining object and its speed is varied, it appears to run backwards sometimes.

Here's my theory in a nutshell then, maybe the field of the rotor appears to be running backwards to the AGW-spun stator, and so it locks into that "reversing" field and constant attraction due to timing causes a pull/push on the rotor, or at least a balancing of the spins so there is little or no net loss.

That lack of loss, may look like a gain when viewed out of context....(still a very interesting effect though).

whaddaya think guys?


Last edited by evilscotsman on Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:41 pm PostPost subject:
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Hey cheers OC, and nice to meet you!

Sorry for the out of sync post (lol) , you must have posted yours while I was typing Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:45 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

That certainly is an interesting appraoch Smile

The inertial aspects of rotating magnetic fields is a documented but not well researched phenomenon. It has been noted, that with no moving parts, a solid state rotating field will exibit gyroscopic characteristics. Therefore, it does imply that there is an inertia and momentum associated with it.

In theoretical quantum analysis there certainly is a deformation of the field just as you have visualized. However, the timing involved is beyond the abilities of what we are doing with the WhiPMag. This theory postulates that particles of a specific diameter are emitted from the pole surface in all directions and that they propagate at c. Imagine a sprinker head with many holes forming concentric circles. When the magnet is rotated nonaxially, these distinct streams of particles are shifted such that they point in another direction. Because there is a propagation period of the particles, the information that the magnet has changed direction will not be recognized at a given distance until those particles with the new trajectory reach that distance. This creates larger and larger separations between previous and subsequent particle trajectories - iow, the farther away you are, the greater the distance between the two paths of the stream. As this separation distance becomes as great as the distance away from the source, measureable distortion (lag) can be observed in real time. So in order to observe this in person, we would need very strong magnets (for the distance away from the source) and rotate them extremely fast so that the separation distance will equal 1 radian (or at least start approching it). This procedure challanges the theory of relativity, because beyond this radius the information would have to exceed c in order to propagate outward, and since it cannot, it must stack up beyond this line with ever increasing density and move away from that density at c. That line appears as an electromagnetic relativistic standing wave. It is similar to the wave in front of a supersonic object, like the tip of an airplane propeller back when we made them too big. Mr. Green

In reality though, we don't have little particles exiting the magnet. But we do have uneven field density that has a curvature proportional to its magnitude factored by the distance between poles. The stronger the magnitude, the sharper the curve. At a point where the curve tangent is parallel to the pole surface, the density follows the inverse cube rule. Drawing a line from the center of the magnet through each of these tangents gives us an event horizon. It is different for different shapes of magnets, for the 1/4" x 1/2" rotor magnets this line is about 34.2 from the internal B vector joining the poles. The event horizon is perpendicular to the spherical radius that comprises a given distance for the flux density being evaluated. There is a point where the flux curvature becomes parallel to the spherical circle. This point is perpendicular to B and represents the equitorial line, the midpoint between each pole. Click Here for a graphical reprentation of what I am describeing. You will notice that the equitorial has the greatest distance for any given density. Also notice that the region within the event horizon has the greatest change in flux density per volume.

When we rotate a magnet (like the stator magnets on the WhiPMag) it is the inverted cone of the event horizon that produces the greatest interactions. We may prefer to consider this multivalued, multidirectional field as static relative to the magnet but we know this is not the case. The field has polarity. There is no distinction between the field density on either side of the equator, but on one side it is one polarity and on the other side it is reversed. This is because the spatial waves that are magnetism have a propagation time and they do propagate from one pole to the next through space. The curved space we call magnetism is not static, and only if we can measure it - take a snapshot for a given instant in time - can we really see how it is assembled. So for convenience, rather than calculate the complex 4D structure of this field, it is generally easier to treat the waves as particles.

So what happens when the source of these waves is rotated perpendicular to its axial poles? You get a time lag like we have been discussing. How much of a lag? That is the one to be solved. How fast do these waves propagate from one pole to the next? I don't know, but I bet we find it tied to Planck's Constant when we discover it. One thing is for certain, it is faster than any current measurement equipement and its amplitude is extremely small, about ths size of an iron nucleus and smaller (depending on temperature). When the temperature raises to the point that these waves begin interferring with each other, we have reached the Curie Point. At zero kelvin they are almost non existent. Flux pinning is an example of changing the atomic vibratory action of a superconductor to syncronize with the mangets wave generation. When they are sync'd, the waves interlock like the threads of two machine screws laying next to each other. The interesting thing, is that the interaction zone is conical, so this makes a nice interlock for pushing and pulling. Of course you can still rotate the cones on their axis.

So, what do you think happens when the frequency is slightly out of sync? Here is an example that Al has graciously provided through his alter ego, TK. Wink Of course, you heard the real explanation here first - as I have not published it anywhere else.

Cheers,
Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:31 am PostPost subject:
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Thanks for the excellent explanation Harvey, and glad to see my theory wasnt too far from the current thinking. I am fascinated with the maps plotted by howard johnson using the 3 axis hall sensors, and showing "particle" vortex spins. Its a crazy looking shape compared to the old school textbook pic of the lines coming out of one pole and looping round to the other pole.

I also found a titbit about another effect that sounds like it has some slight similarity to the behaviour of the whipmag (obviously refers to current + magnetism, but hey):

"The Corbino effect
The Corbino effect is a phenomenon similar to the Hall effect, but a disk-shaped metal sample is used in place of a rectangular one. A radial current through a circular disc subjected to a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the disk, produces a "circular" current through the disk"

So - homopolar voltage......could it be related to behaviour of Al's rig? Maybe it was generated across the stator when spun AGW, then the induced voltage caused the corbino effect, which spun the stator or the rotor faster....? Just my tired ramblings lol, its late here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:09 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Page 6 of This Document gives a graphical representation of the Corbino Effect, although I don't think it follows the straighter path at the end as depicted.

Actually the phenomenon can be explained by `r=(mv)/(qB)` Where r is the radius of the curvature, m is the mass of the electron, v is the velocity of the electron, q is the charge of the elctron and B is the magnetic field. Essentially what this says is that a charged particle will experience a force that is perpendicular to its trajectory and perpendicular to the magnetic field. The direction of the force depends on vector relationships between B and V and the material in which the electron (or any charged particle) is moving (search "left handed materials"). So if the m, q & B all remain constant with v as the only changing vector we can see that the path will plot a spiral out from the center.

An interesting thing to contemplate is the characteristic chaotic motion of free electrons in a room temperature copper disc. If this disc is place within a magnetic field, those electrons will no longer follow straight paths. If the disc is sized and shaped so as to prevent electron flow in one direction but to encourage a circular orbit in the other direction, is it possible to encourage uniformity out of the chaos simply by bringing this things together? Food for thought.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:49 pm PostPost subject:
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

can someone try an experiment for me? Its a simple one, and easy to do but I dont have a rig built yet.

Take a small battery, AA or AAA, and put a voltage across the stator from bearing centre to the rim using the wire ends as "brushes", we know it should spin since its then a homopolar motor, just interested to see what happens if you spin the rotor, then "juice" the stator using just 1.5v to drive it AGW, and see if the rotation of the sync lasts as long as the battery, it may have interesting results. Maybe a tiny voltage would have an effect, I wonder just how little voltage you would need across a spinning stator magnet to induce slight positive assistive torque due to its CoM helping you along.

Its easy to keep something in motion with little input if its already moving, you are simply replacing small frictional losses - it could then be mutual induction between rotor and stator, giving a little push back and forth on Al's rig...

?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:42 pm PostPost subject:
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

ok, since I cant experiment directly, I took a frame by frame look at all of the original HSV videos (sic) and found an interesting difference between GW and AGW rotation. Some may have noticed this but I don't recall reading such an observation, if I have missed it, I apologise, but check out the alignment between the rotor mags and stator during each type of run:

spinning GW Stator / Rotor interactions:

Stator alignment centreline at 90o to rotor rim, all rotor mags poles are opposite to stator ones

Stator-------------------Rotor-------------------Alignment of Rotor Mag to Stator centre-line
ST SN-------------------R1----------------------fully left of centre
ST NS-------------------R2----------------------fully left of centre
ST SN-------------------R3----------------------fully right of centre
ST NS-------------------R4----------------------fully right of centre
ST SN-------------------R5----------------------fully left of centre
ST NS-------------------R6----------------------fully left of centre
ST SN-------------------R7----------------------fully right of centre
ST NS-------------------R8----------------------fully right of centre

AGW

Stator alignment centreline at 90o to rotor rim, all rotor mags poles are same as stator ones

Stator-------------------Rotor----------------------Alignment of Rotor Mag to Stator centre-line
ST NS-------------------R1----------------------centred
ST SN-------------------R2----------------------centred
ST NS-------------------R3----------------------centred
ST SN-------------------R4----------------------centred
ST NS-------------------R5----------------------centred
ST SN-------------------R6----------------------centred
ST NS-------------------R7----------------------centred
ST SN-------------------R8----------------------centred

I see then that the full pole of the stator is synching with the gap between the magnets in GW rotation and in AGW rotation, but the timing of the interactions is completely different - in GW the stator orbits by bouncing on the repulsion area , and seems to fly past each rotor magnet quicker than in AGW, where the rotor magnets are exactly centred to the stator each time they pass and the stator makes a smooth rolling transition along the circumference of the rotor, whereas the GW motion suggests its speeding up passing a magnet and slowing down passing the gap between them, like an eccentric orbit - does this make sense the way i've described it?

I thought if anything the opposite would be true, so it seems in AGW there is an even-ing out of rotational movement...and negation of the "sticky spots" causing all poles always to be opposed at all rotational positions and no attraction that I can see.

That must be what speeds it up, until the losses in either rotor or stator or both, begin to break that sync and it slows then drops out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:17 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

My original (GW) vision had that variable speed, in fact it relied on it. There are times when it can work to our advantage and other times when it's not productive at all.

That's the purpose of the latches and pivots I have described, to limit some of the negative symmetry (pivots to reduce sticky spot resistance) and to accentuate some of the positive (latches to slow or stop stator rotation and take better advantage of repulsion).

The AGW behavior Al discovered is not anything I foresaw, but when he described it to me I was able to construct a modified image in my head. What I saw seemed to be extremely fragile, skipping from one compound field to the next, just bouncing lightly off the surfaces. I did not see any OU behavior, just a delicate, low resistance synchronization. I commented to him at the time that I thought it would be very difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain.

It turns out the AGW sync is much easier to achieve than I thought. And if Al's device is to be believed, some sort of asymmetry is possible which can lead to anomalous behavior. Nobody else has been able to reproduce that effect. Sad

I hope this makes some sort of sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:58 pm PostPost subject:
evilscotsman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

yeah its weird that no AGW rundowns have been anywhere near al's claimed 7 hour runs. That would take a very low loss indeed.

If we have similar magnets and the same rig (and most do not actually look exactly like Al's original) then we should get in the ballpark somewhere, but that hasn't happened.

Thinking out loud then, either the effect is so finicky and Al's setup hit it on the head (a 200 - 1 shot so far I reckon due to the number of non-working replications but all the ones which deviate from his one - for the purposes of reproducing the effect he "got" should be discounted) OR it involves some aspect of the rig that isnt visible to the eye. (stator magnet field shapes?)

An exact copy of the rig that does not work must lie in the magnets as others have said, but if they match then we are left with nothing, and it could not have happened just using the stated mechanical parts.


Ok we are all chasing cheap energy, and the Al effect may be a red herring even if it is reproducible, or it may hold the key to one of the answers to the "cheap energy" search. I dont say free energy since every source is either free or not depending on whether you take the equipment into account. Oil for instance, was made by dead bugs, plants and dinosaurs, but man used money to pull it up out of the seabed. The source was free, but extracting it wasnt.

Therefore every single "root" energy source we have ever found (oil, coal, gas) are in essence free resources, but cost money to extract. The trick is finding a cheap-to-extract resource.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:14 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

evilscotsman wrote:
An exact copy of the rig that does not work must lie in the magnets as others have said, but if they match then we are left with nothing, and it could not have happened just using the stated mechanical parts.


There are still some additional possibilities, other ferromagnetic materials that might modify the field or react to a changing field, such as stator bearings and screws. And there's vibration, play and oscillation in the stators as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:57 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

EvilScotsman wrote:

Therefore every single "root" energy source we have ever found (oil, coal, gas) are in essence free resources, but cost money to extract. The trick is finding a cheap-to-extract resource.


Yep, the Power to Penny ratio Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum