DandelionTheory Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 so i was wrong about frame dragging i admit that, i guess i was still trying to wrap my head around the ionc motion of this thing. so, i broke it down to its bare pices. the green arrow between the 2 counter rotating rings is a representation of the magnetic field generated by ions leaving each ring surface, and being attracted to the opposing ring. if i drew out the magnetic field each ring generates as it spins, the electric field between these rings is inline with the mane axis of the magnetic field generated by ions naturally moving towards the oppositely charged ring as they rotate. so positive ion up, negative ion down. twirly motion. all i have to do is some vector math. and i didn't do it yet. i assume this is what you wanted; you know... "proof". ps, hacking will get you nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterwlocke Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 How did you learn to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 i actually deduced it over a 5 year period. my math skills are bad geometry at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted January 25, 2019 Author Share Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) okay lets start with particles. force on a moving proton in a magnetic field: the force vector is reversed for an electron. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/movchg.html force on a current carrying wire when in a magnetic field: current is the same vector direction as the electron. https://study.com/academy/lesson/understanding-forces-on-current-carrying-wires-in-magnetic-fields.html so if i want a wire with current; or an object carrying current, to be forced in one direction i would have to expose it to a magnetic field, and have that magnetic field be perpendicular to the wire/charged object as well as the velocity vector(or current direction) of that wire/object. static charged plates: magnetic field is created by moving charges. "The whole basis for electromagnetic wave propagation relies on displacement current producing a magnetic field." -second answer. https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/282694/is-there-a-magnetic-field-between-capacitor-plates-while-the-capacitor-is-chargi so its the moving charges that create the magnetic field. moving charged plates would then create a magnetic field around themselves. i wonder if i could set up a way for ions natural motion around a magnetic field to produce an additional perpendicular magnetic field to act on those plates... so the moving charged rings rotate around the main magnetic field, each ring charges ions. because each ring is moving while charged, they produce a magnetic field around themselves. the newly charged ions are forced in the direction of the electric field between the two rings, and produce their own magnetic field inline with the electric field. that magnetic field acts on the ions in the rings. it also makes ions off the ring surface spin around it. Edited January 25, 2019 by DandelionTheory specificity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 6 hours ago, DandelionTheory said: current is the same vector direction as the electron. Conventional current flows int he opposite direction to electrons, for silly historic reasons. 6 hours ago, DandelionTheory said: so the moving charged rings rotate around the main magnetic field, each ring charges ions. How does it "charge ions"? What does "it charges ions" mean? 6 hours ago, DandelionTheory said: because each ring is moving while charged, they produce a magnetic field around themselves Don't believe that's true. But, let's say you have a current in the ring. Choose a reasonable value (say 1A) and work out the force on it from the Earth's magnetic field. Now, from the mass of the ring, you can work out the acceleration it will experience. Is it more or less than the force of gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted January 26, 2019 Author Share Posted January 26, 2019 22 hours ago, Strange said: Conventional current flows int he opposite direction to electrons, for silly historic reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current: "In a conductive material, the moving charged particles that constitute the electric current are called charge carriers. In metals, which make up the wires and other conductors in most electrical circuits, the positively charged atomic nuclei of the atoms are held in a fixed position, and the negatively charged electrons are the charge carriers, free to move about in the metal." so if i wanted to use the lorentz force calculations on a wire, the force on the wire would be the same vector setup as the electron motion in a magnetic field. 22 hours ago, Strange said: How does it "charge ions"? What does "it charges ions" mean? the process in which an electron is either added to or stripped from an atom/molecule. 22 hours ago, Strange said: Don't believe that's true. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253020/amperes-law-for-a-rectangular-plate too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Have you calculated the force yet? 1 hour ago, DandelionTheory said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current: "In a conductive material, the moving charged particles that constitute the electric current are called charge carriers. In metals, which make up the wires and other conductors in most electrical circuits, the positively charged atomic nuclei of the atoms are held in a fixed position, and the negatively charged electrons are the charge carriers, free to move about in the metal." so if i wanted to use the lorentz force calculations on a wire, the force on the wire would be the same vector setup as the electron motion in a magnetic field. Two paragraphs later it says: Quote Since electrons, the charge carriers in metal wires and most other parts of electric circuits, have a negative charge, as a consequence, they flow in the opposite direction of conventional current flow in an electrical circuit. 1 hour ago, DandelionTheory said: the process in which an electron is either added to or stripped from an atom/molecule There are already free electrons, because it's a conductor. 1 hour ago, DandelionTheory said: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253020/amperes-law-for-a-rectangular-plate too bad. That is for a plate carrying current, not a rotating charged ring. In the later case there is no current. Maybe I'm wrong about that. It doesn't really matter until you have calculated the magnitude of the force generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/25/2019 at 10:55 PM, Strange said: Have you calculated the force yet? nope, have you considered free ions adding to the system? On 1/25/2019 at 10:55 PM, Strange said: Two paragraphs later it says: you seem to be asking if i know the difference between charge carriers and current in a circuit, yes. since i used the actual force vector idea(force on a particle in a magnetic field) for the electrons in the ring while saying the rings physically rotate, i can safely say i get what current is and what charge carriers are: current is the physical movement of negative charge carriers, in a metal object the shell configuration allows for rapid ionization so the electrons physically move about. an abundance of circuit current would be a battery positive and negatively charged(BUUUUNCH of electrons). so there. On 1/25/2019 at 10:55 PM, Strange said: There are already free electrons, because it's a conductor. add more, you might get ions from the atmosphere to take some and make magnetic fields >.> it also makes the metal ring "electron heavy" On 1/25/2019 at 10:55 PM, Strange said: That is for a plate carrying current, not a rotating charged ring. In the later case there is no current. relative to what? current is a rate of moving charges through a carrier, each ring relative to the other has a current in the opposite direction. be aware if you strip electrons from a ring that means you have to treat it as proton heavy. On 1/25/2019 at 10:55 PM, Strange said: Maybe I'm wrong about that. It doesn't really matter until you have calculated the magnitude of the force generated. you don't even know how it works completely, brave. you know i noticed how much of a wind this thing would turn up, it would be funny if it could generate some power back with a turbine. lol. -DandelionTheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 4 hours ago, DandelionTheory said: you don't even know how it works completely I don't know. I am just asking you to calculate the force, to see if the idea is worth pursuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted February 6, 2019 Author Share Posted February 6, 2019 So someone brought up a point i want to throw out there. there would be alot of centrifugal force on the rings. so i drew this up, the bottom setup turns the force vectors towards the center axis, buuuuuuut i am not too sure this isn't cheating... i mean through definition i can conclude the black arrow is an electric field; inline with the magnetic field axis created by ions moving from one ring to the other. i can also conclude the rotation of each ring causes the ions in it to make a magnetic field like this. so i don't see how this is wrong, but it looks weird... -DandelionTheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted February 7, 2019 Author Share Posted February 7, 2019 On 1/30/2019 at 11:58 PM, Strange said: I don't know. I am just asking you to calculate the force, to see if the idea is worth pursuing. I dont know how to go about calculating this with math, personally i dont think i would need much for a proof of concept. it seems a person that needs math to explain things to them has trouble working out problems in their head. because i dont need math to tell me the rules of the road or how to turn a wrench, i need math for counting. physicists need math to claim rule over an idea, i never will. math is a language and forcing someone to speak a language doesnt make them intelligent, it makes the person forcing math a "gate keeper" and it makes the person being forced compliant. i could tell you "i learned it from the universe, it and i communicate". that is a language, why dont you translate math into universe? my attempt to communicate this idea with you is this, i am doing the best i can to make it easier for you to understand but i do not speak math i speak universe and english. heres a picture of the tools i used to help me see the force vectors rotate. I did however find someone kind enough to take this idea to their physics professor, the professor was curious enough to enter the data into a program. the result that i received was "it achieves linear motion, but centrifugal force rips the rings appart very quickly". so i drew up the latest iteration. if i could badly guess, its close to rail gun physics; with a dash of charged particle in a magnetic field. -DandelionTheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 9 hours ago, DandelionTheory said: I dont know how to go about calculating this with math, personally i dont think i would need much for a proof of concept. it seems a person that needs math to explain things to them has trouble working out problems in their head. because i dont need math to tell me the rules of the road or how to turn a wrench, i need math for counting. physicists need math to claim rule over an idea, i never will. math is a language and forcing someone to speak a language doesnt make them intelligent, it makes the person forcing math a "gate keeper" and it makes the person being forced compliant. i could tell you "i learned it from the universe, it and i communicate". that is a language, why dont you translate math into universe? my attempt to communicate this idea with you is this, i am doing the best i can to make it easier for you to understand but i do not speak math i speak universe and english. heres a picture of the tools i used to help me see the force vectors rotate. I did however find someone kind enough to take this idea to their physics professor, the professor was curious enough to enter the data into a program. the result that i received was "it achieves linear motion, but centrifugal force rips the rings appart very quickly". so i drew up the latest iteration. if i could badly guess, its close to rail gun physics; with a dash of charged particle in a magnetic field. -DandelionTheory Maths is the language of science and if you want to talk to scientists and have them listen to you, you need to speak in that language. The beauty of it is, is that it is clear, concise and universally understood by those in that community. Science is mostly a quantitative subject and it's rather inefficient to to talk numbers in words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 It is also the language that allows us to make predictions of numerous dynamics, and test those predictions via measurement. Physics would be useless without mathematics. Words themselves are too easily misunderstood, a descriptive in words in a great deal many theories are often misleading to those not familiar with a given theory etc. As you mentioned the mathematics is far more concise and clear to those that spend the time studying the mathematics of a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 On 2/7/2019 at 3:34 AM, StringJunky said: Maths is the language of science and if you want to talk to scientists and have them listen to you, you need to speak in that language. The beauty of it is, is that it is clear, concise and universally understood by those in that community. Science is mostly a quantitative subject and it's rather inefficient to to talk numbers in words. inefficient is a matter of opinion, science is a study of the observable universe. observable phenomenon attempted to be describable to another observer. explainable by means of math and gesture, like an art, we find many means to convey our findings to one another; and to isolate the very freedom of thought to one means of communication is narrow minded and some serious gatekeeping. i used physical representations of force on a charged particle in a magnetic field(the vector tools), by means of real world calculation. that counts. if you visualize only what dimensions you're working with at a time its easier to handle larger pictures after a long thought process. laws of physics can be made out to be a list of dance steps and an acrobat could then calculate gravity's electric analog or some such. you do not govern our understanding of the universe, you observe it. as a scientist, you call yourself, i would assume you could observe the universe or a representation of it, and understand what its representing when physical processes are conveyed. am i the only one? math is a version of expression i'm not familiar with yet; i literally did this with a marker, some vector tools, the right hand rule, and time... i learned the rules from scientists like you, on websites you post here on the forum to learn from. i get the concepts. to me this is a puzzle and a craft. using the forces of nature like guides in my journey of discovery. they cannot be bargained with. math is great in showing us exactness, since when is exactitude important when conveying basic ideas like the lorentz force? speaking of puzzles, you can solve a jigsaw puzzle with math; or you can just try it out and do it. see since i see it as a craft, i NEED to be sure of my tools. so i made physical representations of force on a particle in a magnetic field, and saw what the magnetic fields and velocity directions were needed to create linear motion in one general direction. oh look, it worked something interesting out. i would like to show you with a picture and words... math is not THE language of science, we also use pictures and wave our hands around a lot when speaking person to person. you don't need a calculator learn how to put the cube in the square hole. attempt to convey prime numbers as an equation to a 3rd grader. no words now, your rules... can you?! if you also claim they are the tools of science, i will show you how to rub 2 sticks together to make a campfire. -DandelionTheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 (edited) Here is a piece of advice to learn some relevant math, Use your guides you made to understand Euler angles and pursue that to the spinor representations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_angles You may have the technique that suits you via visual aids, however a good mathematician can just as readily describe the dynamics of your tool. I wouldn't knock the power of mathematical representations they are powerful tools in studying dynamics. Mathematics is a key fundamental language in physics for just this very reason. If you truly study it you can gain just as much trust in it as any object you can hold onto. Edited February 9, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taeto Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 12 hours ago, DandelionTheory said: if you also claim they are the tools of science, i will show you how to rub 2 sticks together to make a campfire To a child, this might seem like magic. Does it appear to you that this phenomenon instead bears some sort of scientific explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ja7tdo Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 I think that your model appears in the rotation of the typhoon. Or it may be the mechanism by which particles increase voltage in thunderclouds. Mathematics is only a tool of science. It is the power of image to advance science forward. Your technique is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 (edited) So if we rotate the lorentz force vector tool, we see that a magnetic field is required for force to be inline with the main axis of rotation. not possible with this setup. BUT if we do this with them...... the force vectors are in the same direction. So if we do this with them..... LOL math. -DandelionTheory Edited April 20, 2019 by DandelionTheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandelionTheory Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 woopsie, i got mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now