0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Returning to the argument that a magnetic field comprises particles, for ease of reference it would be as well to name this. My first choice was a luminon as this hearkens to an earlier concept of luminiferous aether that was assumed to fill all space. But I have since become aware of the search for zero point energy or the God Particle and, as I am proposing that the magnetic field in fact holds this particle, it would perhaps, be more appropriate to call it a zipon. This is loosely based on an acronym of Zero Point Energy compounded with concepts of infinity, which makes it more of an acronymic oxymoron. In any event it is easier to say zipon than luminon. But I am not married to any of these names and hope that someone will come up with something more appropriate. For now and for purposes of this exercise I shall simply refer to it as a zipon.
Zipons that have disassociated from the field are referred to as Truants. The assumption is made that the zipon is removed from its position in the field by some event and it then manifests as matter.
This limits the amount of dissipated energy, not to the amount of fieldstransferred from the primary source, but to the number of transitions through thatresistive amalgam. So it is proposed that the greater the number of transitions,or the greater their frequency, then, correspondingly, the greater is the amount ofenergy dissipated. The object of the circuit configuration is to increase thenumber of transitions of current flow through the resistive material. To this end a switch is applied to inductive components to enable counterelectromotive force to induce an opposing or reverse current flow of the primarysource. Depending on the number of transitions and as evident in this test, theenergy that is then dissipated at the resistor can, in fact, be greater than the lossof energy or potential difference at the supply source. In short, the energydelivered by the battery goes back to the battery. And the energy dissipated atthe load comes from the load.
Vern, with respect, you present this statement as a fact. Can you explain it? I can understand that a closed system may operate - somewhere, somehow. In fact I have a field model that I believe is a 'closed system'. But I cannot see how the electromagnetic interaction can ever operate as a closed system. To ask me first 'produce perpetual motion' is, with respect absurd and unfair. It has no part in my model nor my claims.
Again, the link to 'over unity' and perpetual motion is a misconcpetion.
Bored Chemist. Good luck on that experiment. I'd love to know the results.
I agree that it wouldn't work. Why are overunity machines perpetual motion machines in disguise? Can you explain this? I personally, do not know of anyone who claims perpetual motion. But I do know an awful lot of people who have found 'untiy' as determined by thermodynamic laws and as applied to electric current - to be substantially different. Theory appears to conflict with the experimental evidence.
The relevance of these fields to electric current is explained in this thread. I'm so impressed that you actually have tried to get your mind around this. It entirely defeats most people including academic physicists - with precisely two exceptions. Thanks for that bit of encouragement - if that's what was intended. Truth is that the whole thing is speculative unless and until I can get that ruddy paper published so that academics can look at the model more closely. The electric circuit is the only proof I have of that model.
What I am suggesting that certain presumptions that require tht the amount of energy delivered to never exceed the amount of energy dissipated is only correct if you do not switch the current. If you switch the current - even from utility supply sources, then the amount of energy dissipated can exceed the amount of energy delivered.But I am not simply just 'claiming' this fact. I am asking anyone who contends it to set up the apparatus and find out for yourselves. It is repeatedly evident that there is some 'flaw' in classical presumption related to the measurement of electric energy.
This might amuse you. My family, who are not usually so rude, say that the number of people who understand my model is inversely proportional to the number of people who read it.