Proposal: Electricity Animation
+3
LongtimeAirman
Jared Magneson
Ciaolo
7 posters
Page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
.
Jared, I like your alpha https://vimeo.com/157484485. Are you satisfied?
Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?
.
Jared, I like your alpha https://vimeo.com/157484485. Are you satisfied?
Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2023
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Jared, that's a nice animation or simulation, but can you explain where forces are holding the nucleons together? And how would two electrons change the alpha++ into a neutral helium atom?
Airman said: Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.
Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.
I can understand suction cups being able to hold several pounds of weight due to air pressure on the cups. Suction means higher pressure moving toward lower pressure. Higher air pressure pushes on lower pressure cups. (You can even measure the air pressure when the weight overcomes it.)
Photon channels might be at lower pressure, causing more photons from outside where there's ambient higher pressure to enter the channel. As photons enter a proton, the pressure inside increases, so photons are forced out of it at the equator (or some out the other pole). Right?
I don't see where the suction is though between the ionized balloon and the wall. Normally, when electrons are removed from two objects, they repel each other, I'm told. Examples are given online: rubbing glass and silk or fur and rubber, transferring electrons from the former to the latter. Each pair then suction together, but the glass and fur repel, as do the silk and rubber. Isn't that correct? So if balloon protons meet wall protons, I think they'd repel. It looks like the balloon protons would share the wall electrons in order to get suction.
But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?
Airman said: Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.
Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.
I can understand suction cups being able to hold several pounds of weight due to air pressure on the cups. Suction means higher pressure moving toward lower pressure. Higher air pressure pushes on lower pressure cups. (You can even measure the air pressure when the weight overcomes it.)
Photon channels might be at lower pressure, causing more photons from outside where there's ambient higher pressure to enter the channel. As photons enter a proton, the pressure inside increases, so photons are forced out of it at the equator (or some out the other pole). Right?
I don't see where the suction is though between the ionized balloon and the wall. Normally, when electrons are removed from two objects, they repel each other, I'm told. Examples are given online: rubbing glass and silk or fur and rubber, transferring electrons from the former to the latter. Each pair then suction together, but the glass and fur repel, as do the silk and rubber. Isn't that correct? So if balloon protons meet wall protons, I think they'd repel. It looks like the balloon protons would share the wall electrons in order to get suction.
But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Jared, I like your alpha https://vimeo.com/157484485. Are you satisfied?
Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?
.
It's an older video I made before meeting you folks and it's a bit off. The neutrons channel through-charge from the protons, and I've shown them channeling equatorial charge. I'll make a new one soon, and hydrogen should be a piece of cake. I'm never satisfied with these demonstrations, because it's just an animation and not entirely physical just yet. Getting there.
Lloyd wrote:Jared, that's a nice animation or simulation, but can you explain where forces are holding the nucleons together? And how would two electrons change the alpha++ into a neutral helium atom?
Watch the video again. The charge streams hold the nucleus together via direct bombardment. It's not "forces", it's literally photons pushing the nucleons together and keeping them close. Mathis had a little criticism for me (explained above) but it represents nuclear theory better than anything in the mainstream has, even so. It also leads us to the fission/uranium problem quite nicely.
The electrons are also in the video, just very tiny at the N and S poles, being driven there by charge. They are in the blue charge streams. So here I am showing the standard, "neutral" helium atom.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
LloydK wrote:Jared, that's a nice animation or simulation, but can you explain where forces are holding the nucleons together? And how would two electrons change the alpha++ into a neutral helium atom?
Airman said: Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.
Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.
I can understand suction cups being able to hold several pounds of weight due to air pressure on the cups. Suction means higher pressure moving toward lower pressure. Higher air pressure pushes on lower pressure cups. (You can even measure the air pressure when the weight overcomes it.)
Photon channels might be at lower pressure, causing more photons from outside where there's ambient higher pressure to enter the channel. As photons enter a proton, the pressure inside increases, so photons are forced out of it at the equator (or some out the other pole). Right?
I don't see where the suction is though between the ionized balloon and the wall. Normally, when electrons are removed from two objects, they repel each other, I'm told. Examples are given online: rubbing glass and silk or fur and rubber, transferring electrons from the former to the latter. Each pair then suction together, but the glass and fur repel, as do the silk and rubber. Isn't that correct? So if balloon protons meet wall protons, I think they'd repel. It looks like the balloon protons would share the wall electrons in order to get suction.
But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?
That's actually not exactly correct Loyd. Remember this old link...I think you even commented on it here and there. CC didn't entertain it that much. The question to ask is why does Vitamin E stop electric charge in terms of the charge field?:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15057
Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation
...
Grzybowski's new study also provides new puzzles for scientists to investigate. While the new study overturns some older beliefs about static electricity, it doesn't fully explain how the phenomenon works. "It's a great day when you come to the office and somebody shows you that your beliefs are wrong," UCLA physicist Seth Putterman says.
Putterman says one thing that remains unexplained after this new study—and surprises him—is that the geometry of the charge pattern (that map of the different charges) doesn't change significantly as the two statically charged object move together and the charge decreases. To him, this implies that ions that move around easily on an object's surface are not causing static electricity. If they were, they should change the charging pattern that Grzybowski's team saw on the surface, he says. "To me this means you have extra electrons trapped deep inside the material causing the [static electricity], and they can't go walking around the surface as would ions," he says. That's because the electrons are bound up inside the material.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Lloyd wrote:But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?
To put it another way, Lloyd, the rubbed balloon would have an area of LESS repulsion, when in contact with the wall. The rest of the balloon would feel its normal repulsion, from all things, including the air around it. So it's much like a magnetic effect, in that the attraction is (like all attractions, even to women) simply a phenomenon of less repulsion. It's not like a magnetic effect in the sense of spins however, it's just a similar principle.
But that's how all attractions are explained, mechanically, using the charge field. Once primed by the rubbing, the balloon is not repelling the wall as much as an unprimed balloon. It's the same with electron/proton attractions - they only appear to attract, but really they're just repelling each other less, relative to other particles. If a proton repels another proton at 1:1, a proton repels an electron at 1:1/1821, due to the radius difference. Since a proton and a neutron are the same radius, the neutron appears neutral to the proton. They repel each other (generally) as much as a proton-to-proton or a neutron-to-neutron would.
Hope that helps a little. I can make a video if necessary.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Okay, Jared, I'll try to see the vimeo tomorrow. But I don't know how to think of motions without forces involved. Pressure is force per area.
Cr6 (Carsick?), vitamin E stops static electricity? Can you diagram it and show how? The following from the thread is interesting.
He then used Kelvin probe microscopy to measure molecular charges in the material. With this technique, a scientist runs a tiny probe over the microscopic hills and valleys of surfaces, and the probe vibrates differently over differently charged regions, creating a map of the charges. That's how Grzybowski saw that each material had a random patchwork of positive and negative charges, and neither was uniformly charged. In addition, his tests showed that PDMS and Teflon exchange silicon and fluorine atoms upon contact, a more significant transfer of material than ever previously shown.
... Putterman says one thing that remains unexplained after this new study—and surprises him—is that the geometry of the charge pattern (that map of the different charges) doesn't change significantly as the two statically charged object move together and the charge decreases. To him, this implies that ions that move around easily on an object's surface are not causing static electricity. If they were, they should change the charging pattern that Grzybowski's team saw on the surface, he says. "To me this means you have extra electrons trapped deep inside the material causing the [static electricity], and they can't go walking around the surface as would ions," he says. That's because the electrons are bound up inside the material.
So do we rub electrons off of balloons, or atoms?
Cr6 (Carsick?), vitamin E stops static electricity? Can you diagram it and show how? The following from the thread is interesting.
He then used Kelvin probe microscopy to measure molecular charges in the material. With this technique, a scientist runs a tiny probe over the microscopic hills and valleys of surfaces, and the probe vibrates differently over differently charged regions, creating a map of the charges. That's how Grzybowski saw that each material had a random patchwork of positive and negative charges, and neither was uniformly charged. In addition, his tests showed that PDMS and Teflon exchange silicon and fluorine atoms upon contact, a more significant transfer of material than ever previously shown.
... Putterman says one thing that remains unexplained after this new study—and surprises him—is that the geometry of the charge pattern (that map of the different charges) doesn't change significantly as the two statically charged object move together and the charge decreases. To him, this implies that ions that move around easily on an object's surface are not causing static electricity. If they were, they should change the charging pattern that Grzybowski's team saw on the surface, he says. "To me this means you have extra electrons trapped deep inside the material causing the [static electricity], and they can't go walking around the surface as would ions," he says. That's because the electrons are bound up inside the material.
So do we rub electrons off of balloons, or atoms?
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
LongtimeAirman wrote:Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?
Here's my video on Hydrogen, so far. It may need some tweaking, take a look and let me know what you folks think?
https://vimeo.com/206241864
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Jared Magneson wrote:To put it another way, Lloyd, the rubbed balloon would have an area of LESS repulsion, when in contact with the wall. The rest of the balloon would feel its normal repulsion, from all things, including the air around it. So it's much like a magnetic effect, in that the attraction is (like all attractions, even to women) simply a phenomenon of less repulsion. It's not like a magnetic effect in the sense of spins however, it's just a similar principle.
But that's how all attractions are explained, mechanically, using the charge field. Once primed by the rubbing, the balloon is not repelling the wall as much as an unprimed balloon. It's the same with electron/proton attractions - they only appear to attract, but really they're just repelling each other less, relative to other particles. If a proton repels another proton at 1:1, a proton repels an electron at 1:1/1821, due to the radius difference. Since a proton and a neutron are the same radius, the neutron appears neutral to the proton. They repel each other (generally) as much as a proton-to-proton or a neutron-to-neutron would.
I was thinking of this as something like a magnetic effect too, but slightly differently. The rubbing causes the surface layer(s) to break up a bit and therefore they emit more charge than normal (sort of like removing the oxidized layer on a metal which exposes the underlying raw atoms). Both surfaces can be doing this (but not necessarily at the same rate) and as you bring them together they clear out the ambient field, just like close magnets for that final snap, which holds them together. It is the removal of the ambient field that causes the increased net force from all other directions, so it is more of a gravitational effect than a magnetic one. But I haven't given it a lot of thought as I think it is too far above the level I am trying to understand. If we don't have a solid understanding of the quantum world, then we can't hope to have much understanding at the macro level. I wasn't going to comment on this stuff because of that but I was glad to see you come close to what I was thinking so I thought I would chime in.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
J & N, in my previous post, did yous notice this statement that Cr6 referenced on TB? "his tests showed that PDMS and Teflon exchange silicon and fluorine atoms upon contact, a more significant transfer of material than ever previously shown."
So I was asking if rubbing a balloon might remove whole atoms as well. If so, maybe the issue is too complex, as N may have suggested. That's not to say that J's and A's ideas above are off.
As I asked in the other thread, why do you want to simulate a Hydrogen atom containing a neutron?
Oh, I also meant to post the following, which I had saved to a file a couple years ago.
IONIZATION & PROTON POLES
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
-The south pole Chromium electron is more than twice as bound in the ion as in the atom.
-The north electron was blocking 21.8% of the charge.
-The electron has a magnetic moment 658 times larger than that of the proton.
-The electron would be capable of blocking 36.1% (658/1821) of the charge coming in, if the electron were no distance from the pole.
-From the difference between 36.1% and 21.8%, it must be about 1.5 electron radii away [.36x = .218. x ˜ 1.5] the radius of the eddy.
-This tells us why elements ionize before bonding, as Chromium can create a bond over 20% stronger by kicking that electron out of the eddy.
-What causes ionization before bonding is the other element nearby.
-When the two charge streams meet, the second charge stream blows that electron out of the hole before bonding.
-We can also blow the electron out of that hole when we introduce external charge via an electrical current or magnetic field.
So I was asking if rubbing a balloon might remove whole atoms as well. If so, maybe the issue is too complex, as N may have suggested. That's not to say that J's and A's ideas above are off.
As I asked in the other thread, why do you want to simulate a Hydrogen atom containing a neutron?
Oh, I also meant to post the following, which I had saved to a file a couple years ago.
IONIZATION & PROTON POLES
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
-The south pole Chromium electron is more than twice as bound in the ion as in the atom.
-The north electron was blocking 21.8% of the charge.
-The electron has a magnetic moment 658 times larger than that of the proton.
-The electron would be capable of blocking 36.1% (658/1821) of the charge coming in, if the electron were no distance from the pole.
-From the difference between 36.1% and 21.8%, it must be about 1.5 electron radii away [.36x = .218. x ˜ 1.5] the radius of the eddy.
-This tells us why elements ionize before bonding, as Chromium can create a bond over 20% stronger by kicking that electron out of the eddy.
-What causes ionization before bonding is the other element nearby.
-When the two charge streams meet, the second charge stream blows that electron out of the hole before bonding.
-We can also blow the electron out of that hole when we introduce external charge via an electrical current or magnetic field.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
I have nothing against transferring atoms in this process. I think that is probably more likely when the materials are complex molecules rather than simpler ones or just straight atoms. That is the problem with these types of questions. You really need to look at the specific elements and molecules being used, there is no generic solution hence my statement about it being too complex. This also helps to explain why a certain material can be the positive with one material and the negative with another (using the mainstream terminology).
It's really hard not to think about these things when the questions are asked but I try to stick in the quantum world and build up from there. I want a solid foundation beneath me before I start to consider larger phenomenon. On the other hand, it can be a good test of what you understand at the smaller scales to see if you can extrapolate upwards. So it can be fun to think about but I try to remember to be careful in what I find and not put too much confidence in it.
It's really hard not to think about these things when the questions are asked but I try to stick in the quantum world and build up from there. I want a solid foundation beneath me before I start to consider larger phenomenon. On the other hand, it can be a good test of what you understand at the smaller scales to see if you can extrapolate upwards. So it can be fun to think about but I try to remember to be careful in what I find and not put too much confidence in it.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
.
Lloyd, Please forgive me for repeating myself, I'm addressing your questions.
Electrons swept aside were previously blocking the nuclei’s photon channel input locations (i.e. south pole). Those are the points that the electrons always drift to. Extra electrons may blanket the nuclei, but they are really of no consequence.
Electrons in those positions must recycle charge too. This may help explain how electrons might orbit, block, or otherwise effect the charge stream entering the nuclei.
You provided sufficient force to overcome wall/balloon proton/proton resistance when you pressed the balloon against the wall, creating direct wall to balloon, proton to proton bonds.
We are comparing and sometimes confusing several close concepts, charge field: channels, streams, bonds, and recycling.
I’m sorry to have thought up the suction cup analogy, I was wrong.
A better analogy – The wind. Here's another quote from
Diatomic Hydrogen http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf
Wind pressure is far less severe compared to suction cups. Now we can understand how our structure is permeable to photon traffic without worrying about structure integrity.
.
Lloyd, Please forgive me for repeating myself, I'm addressing your questions.
Electrons swept aside were previously blocking the nuclei’s photon channel input locations (i.e. south pole). Those are the points that the electrons always drift to. Extra electrons may blanket the nuclei, but they are really of no consequence.
Electrons in those positions must recycle charge too. This may help explain how electrons might orbit, block, or otherwise effect the charge stream entering the nuclei.
You provided sufficient force to overcome wall/balloon proton/proton resistance when you pressed the balloon against the wall, creating direct wall to balloon, proton to proton bonds.
We are comparing and sometimes confusing several close concepts, charge field: channels, streams, bonds, and recycling.
I’m sorry to have thought up the suction cup analogy, I was wrong.
A better analogy – The wind. Here's another quote from
Diatomic Hydrogen http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf
The protons and electrons recycle these charge photons, taking them in at their poles and emitting them (most heavily) at their equators. It is this recycling that creates the potentials in the field, by creating directions and variable densities. The analogy is wind, which creates field potentials in the same way
Wind pressure is far less severe compared to suction cups. Now we can understand how our structure is permeable to photon traffic without worrying about structure integrity.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2023
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
I don't know if I'll understand until it's diagrammed fully somehow.
There are 9 static electricity experiments shown on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y
Some look like wind, and others look like suction. Is there suction and wind in each case, but just not showing one or the other? How does suction/attraction work?
There are 9 static electricity experiments shown on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y
Some look like wind, and others look like suction. Is there suction and wind in each case, but just not showing one or the other? How does suction/attraction work?
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
LloydK wrote:There are 9 static electricity experiments shown on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y
Some look like wind, and others look like suction. Is there suction and wind in each case, but just not showing one or the other? How does suction/attraction work?
None of these are examples of static electricity. They are all examples of magnetism.
Mathis wrote:It is known that a magnet's strength can be increased or induced by an electric field. This is called an electromagnet. My critic will ask how my situation above could be increased. Haven't I just turned off the spin of the photons, maximizing the solo-gravity field? If it is maximized, how can the attraction be increased even further? This is not hard to answer, either, since my situation above didn't really maximize much of anything. The only thing I maximized was the coherence, so that the forward torques would be as near parallel as possible. But there are many other factors that can be “maximized” beyond that. For example, in the gap between objects, we will always have a large amount of cross traffic, caused by rogue photons and other quanta. Even if we assume that the charge field has an average direction caused by the masses in the area, that will always just be an average. In reality, we always have a large amount of cross traffic, and that must diminish the efficiency of the charge repulsion between the objects.
In fact, that is what causes the “snap” when magnets come together. Unlike gravity, the force of magnetism has a big flux right at the end. For instance, if you lift your foot off the ground, you do not feel a big tug just as you break contact, and a much lesser tug at 2 inches. No, gravity is a constant in that situation, and this is because solo-gravity is not a particle field. It is a real acceleration, not a field of bombardment. Particles in the gap can't affect it. But magnets have a strong bond at contact, and a much weaker attraction as soon as contact is broken. One cause of this is that as soon as contact is broken, the cross-traffic field rushes back in, greatly diminishing the efficiency of the torque meetings. Rogue photons come in from both sides and stir things up. No matter how coherent our fields emitted from the two magnets may be, the gap is not just filled by that emission. It is filled by emission from everywhere. So even a coherent emitted field will be much less than perfectly efficient. But when the magnets actually touch, this cross-traffic is very greatly decreased, all at once. The molecules exclude them. Since even solid structures are very porous, we will still have photon cross traffic inside the magnet, but we will have much less cross traffic than in the gap. That is what causes the snap.
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
That paper explains the "attraction" pretty well. It's just a field of less repulsion, so the objects automatically move in that direction as it's the path of least resistance. The objects are already being pushed from all directions (to one degree or another) by ambient charge, so by polarizing or "cohering" one side relative to another surface, the object is pushed into the surface. The balloon is pushed into the wall, not pulled. It's the same with all other attractions.
In protons, the charge isn't "attracted" to the poles, but since it's repelled more in all other areas (especially at the equator), we have a greater potential for incoming charge photons to enter at the poles. It's simply a path of less repulsion than the other available paths, so to us it might appear as an attraction.
It's kind of like being in a room full of ugly women. One might stand out as being less ugly, so you're automatically going to be more attracted to her. It doesn't make her a very attractive person necessarily, she simply doesn't make you as nauseous as the others.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Thanks for the explanation, Jared. Magnetism seems plausible, but did you notice the two soap bubbles on the table? They appeared to me to be suctioned, not pushed from behind. The fronts of the bubbles were distorted toward the pipe between them as they moved across the flat surface on the table.
Do you not see the suction effect there? Airman's earlier explanation of suction cups seems to be approximately correct. Suctioning is reducing pressure in an area, so higher pressure around it moves things toward the lower pressure. The inside of each bubble had higher pressure air or photons, causing the front of the bubble to distort toward the low pressure pipe first, then the rest of the bubble was pulled and pushed along behind it.
Do you not see the suction effect there? Airman's earlier explanation of suction cups seems to be approximately correct. Suctioning is reducing pressure in an area, so higher pressure around it moves things toward the lower pressure. The inside of each bubble had higher pressure air or photons, causing the front of the bubble to distort toward the low pressure pipe first, then the rest of the bubble was pulled and pushed along behind it.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
All attractions are apparent attractions only, though. They APPEAR to be "suctioned". But what's really happening is that the propensity or tendency for them to hold their initial shape (gravity arrayed against charge) is being lessened in that one direction. So the incoming ambient charge is pressing less on them as their proximity to the charged, magnetized wand increases. It's feeling less pressure at those points because of this proximity, so the air inside the bubble is moving towards the wand because it's more free to move in that direction than in any other, especially down.
To put it another way, the wand is decreasing the incoming charge photons relative to the bubbles as it gets near by blocking them from that direction. The air inside the bubbles is more free to move that direction, since in all other directions it is feeling more pressure. Down, we have gravity. Up, we have the Earth's charge. From all other angles in the half-sphere we have SOME charge, but from the angle towards the polarized wand we have less charge. The ambient charge it would normally feel is being pushed out of the way by the magnetic effect of the wand.
To put it another way, the wand is decreasing the incoming charge photons relative to the bubbles as it gets near by blocking them from that direction. The air inside the bubbles is more free to move that direction, since in all other directions it is feeling more pressure. Down, we have gravity. Up, we have the Earth's charge. From all other angles in the half-sphere we have SOME charge, but from the angle towards the polarized wand we have less charge. The ambient charge it would normally feel is being pushed out of the way by the magnetic effect of the wand.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Now all that's left to explain is "the magnetic effect of the wand". Did Miles explain that already? I'll check the link above.
What you described is close to what's understood about suction. Everyone realizes suction is a push of higher pressure toward lower pressure.
Steven Rado referred to positive and negative charges as sources and sinks. Wind and suction seem to me to be useful words too since they're easy to understand.
PS, have you attempted yet to simulate magnetism?
I just noticed this paragraph in the Magnet paper that seems to contradict the idea that the static electricity experiments involve magnetism: normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.
Another confusing issue for me is, if magnetic attraction is due to canceling photon spins to allow gravitation to do the attracting, then, if a magnet were suspended above another magnet with opposite poles facing each other, it seems that the lower magnet should fall, due to gravity, instead of rise and stick to the suspended magnet. So I'm thinking that suction might be a better explanation than canceling spins, although I don't know offhand how low pressure for suction could be produced. If someone can simulate magnetism with photon spins, then I might understand how that would work. For now, I'll think about how low pressure suction might be produced in static electricity and magnets.
What you described is close to what's understood about suction. Everyone realizes suction is a push of higher pressure toward lower pressure.
Steven Rado referred to positive and negative charges as sources and sinks. Wind and suction seem to me to be useful words too since they're easy to understand.
PS, have you attempted yet to simulate magnetism?
I just noticed this paragraph in the Magnet paper that seems to contradict the idea that the static electricity experiments involve magnetism: normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.
Another confusing issue for me is, if magnetic attraction is due to canceling photon spins to allow gravitation to do the attracting, then, if a magnet were suspended above another magnet with opposite poles facing each other, it seems that the lower magnet should fall, due to gravity, instead of rise and stick to the suspended magnet. So I'm thinking that suction might be a better explanation than canceling spins, although I don't know offhand how low pressure for suction could be produced. If someone can simulate magnetism with photon spins, then I might understand how that would work. For now, I'll think about how low pressure suction might be produced in static electricity and magnets.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
LloydK wrote:I just noticed this paragraph in the Magnet paper that seems to contradict the idea that the static electricity experiments involve magnetism: normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.
I wouldn't put too much weight into those quotes. Miles is talking about normal objects but that video did not contain normal objects. The PVC pipe was normal, but after rubbing it with the cloth, it is not normal anymore. Rubbing it causes a coherence in the pipes charge field, How, I don't know as that would require a study of the molecular make up of PVC and the cloth. The effects seen are the result of the increased and coherent charge flow from the pipe.
I thought the really interesting one was the water. Just before the clip changes to another, you see that the water curled right around and some droplets were moving back towards the pipe. That shows an initial repulsion followed by an attraction. I saw that as a magnetic effect caused by charge photons that were spinning up on the side closest to the water, furthest from the pipe (of each photon). That would make the spin axis of each charge photon parallel to the pipe as it exits it. If we use the right-hand-rule, then the electric field in the pipe was moving from the end back towards the holders hand causing a magnetic field that curls up and around that vector (on the side that the water was on relative to the pipe).
Another interesting one was the aluminium foil under the glass sheet. You could see how the foil was blocking more and less charge in various areas. Still, there are some things that I can't explain right now, such as the levitation of those little balls. Why do they only levitate once the glass is in place? Is it an increased, or maybe a more coherent, charge flow? Is it the glass or the foil or both that cause it? Does it require that the foil be scrunched up in places? If so, then it could be related to charge density and how that is affected by the glass.
LloydK wrote:Another confusing issue for me is, if magnetic attraction is due to canceling photon spins to allow gravitation to do the attracting, then, if a magnet were suspended above another magnet with opposite poles facing each other, it seems that the lower magnet should fall, due to gravity, instead of rise and stick to the suspended magnet. So I'm thinking that suction might be a better explanation than canceling spins, although I don't know offhand how low pressure for suction could be produced. If someone can simulate magnetism with photon spins, then I might understand how that would work. For now, I'll think about how low pressure suction might be produced in static electricity and magnets.
Magnetism is not about gravity. Only the final quick snapping of magnets as they come together is explained by gravity through the clearing of the ambient field. The rest of magnetism is explained through the charge photon motion, namely, its spin. You also have to be careful who's gravity you are talking about. When gravity is used in a magnetic context, it is the gravity of the magnets themselves, not the earth.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Unrelated, but I "fixed" my Hydrogen video and tweaked it a bit to show its charge streams (sans neutron). Take a look and let me know which one is better?
New one:
https://vimeo.com/207040350
Previous one:
https://vimeo.com/206370190
New one:
https://vimeo.com/207040350
Previous one:
https://vimeo.com/206370190
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Why does the charge (yellow) rotate about the proton? On a closer look I noticed that the proton itself is rotating and the charge is rotating with it. That is not how charge emission works (although I have done the same thing in AV). Even if the proton rotates, which we don't need it to since it is already built of spin and is implied inside of the yellow sphere, the charge would not rotate with it. Once the charge photon is moving away from the proton (immediately after the collision) then it is no longer tied to it and will not rotate with it.
If we looked at one single point on the surface of the proton and watched the charge that emerged from that location, then each charge photon would still travel straight out from that point, but the point would move around before emitting the next photon so the next photon will be in a different position when it is emitted. If we looked at all of the photons, then they would describe a spiral from the first emitted photon back to the proton surface.
Even though I know that, I still haven't implemented it in AV like that because to do so I need to make charge a thing in its own right and that will make things very difficult in AV. But you should be able to separate the charge from the proton fairly easily, I imagine.
If we looked at one single point on the surface of the proton and watched the charge that emerged from that location, then each charge photon would still travel straight out from that point, but the point would move around before emitting the next photon so the next photon will be in a different position when it is emitted. If we looked at all of the photons, then they would describe a spiral from the first emitted photon back to the proton surface.
Even though I know that, I still haven't implemented it in AV like that because to do so I need to make charge a thing in its own right and that will make things very difficult in AV. But you should be able to separate the charge from the proton fairly easily, I imagine.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Yeah, I have the entire group keyframed to rotate at a certain point. But mostly just because it looked cool. It's not in my other video, and is easily keyed off. But you're right that the magnetic effect wouldn't work like that - the photons have spin but not tied to the proton's, once released. Should I spin the proton/electon the entire time, but not the charge emission?
Good call, by the way. Good looking out.
Good call, by the way. Good looking out.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Unfortunately, you can't show the spin of the charge photon with this approach because each photon is only a point. That can only show location and you need it that way for performance. The alternative is to have each charge photon as its own sphere with a surface texture that allows you to see its rotation. You can't use shaders to accomplish that though, so you lose all of the performance.
I would suggest a conceptual video, like my Proton Charge Viewer, rather than attempting to be realistic. In that app, the charge vectors are not meant to be literal, but are an indication that charge moves out. Each charge photon has its own spin, shown by its axis but I should change that to use a texture. The vector and the spin show the electric and magnetic properties of charge. I'm sure you can do better with Maya.
With respect to spinning the particle, I'm not sure. It is kind of deceptive in that the particle does not spin that way but I don't think it really matters. At least if it is rotating, then it is a better indication that spin is happening in that area.
In AV the charge is tied to the proton, sometimes the proton stack, and while I don't rotate these things, they can move around if the carousel level or the north and south arms are spinning and the charge has the same motion as the particle they come from. It would be really cool if it wasn't, though. To be able to see the charge density change as a result of that motion would be good. I will have to look into that.
I would suggest a conceptual video, like my Proton Charge Viewer, rather than attempting to be realistic. In that app, the charge vectors are not meant to be literal, but are an indication that charge moves out. Each charge photon has its own spin, shown by its axis but I should change that to use a texture. The vector and the spin show the electric and magnetic properties of charge. I'm sure you can do better with Maya.
With respect to spinning the particle, I'm not sure. It is kind of deceptive in that the particle does not spin that way but I don't think it really matters. At least if it is rotating, then it is a better indication that spin is happening in that area.
In AV the charge is tied to the proton, sometimes the proton stack, and while I don't rotate these things, they can move around if the carousel level or the north and south arms are spinning and the charge has the same motion as the particle they come from. It would be really cool if it wasn't, though. To be able to see the charge density change as a result of that motion would be good. I will have to look into that.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
That is actually really cool, Nevyn. I don't think I've seen that one yet. And I can pretty easily implement something similar in my photon particles via instancing, which takes no performance hit (no more memory to instance many than to do just one). I'll work on it. Might just be a sphere with a pole-cylinder or equator-cylinder as a marker, but it might be helpful.
And of course you're correct. The proton isn't just a big yellow or red sphere. I'd really like to get up to the proton level with my other stacked spin stacking setup and import that into my nuclear one, but I'm still a bit confused as to what spin level the proton is right now. I thought it was three spins above the electron in motion, but our recent conversations have me a bit lost on that front.
And of course you're correct. The proton isn't just a big yellow or red sphere. I'd really like to get up to the proton level with my other stacked spin stacking setup and import that into my nuclear one, but I'm still a bit confused as to what spin level the proton is right now. I thought it was three spins above the electron in motion, but our recent conversations have me a bit lost on that front.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Jared, the grids on the proton and electron seem to help.
Is the electron to scale?
Miles said the electron blocks some of the photon stream. Did he say 30-some%? Has he explained why the electron doesn't get sucked right into the proton? He also said the electron orbits the axis, like a ball on water that's going down a drain, I think. Is it worth showing the electron circling around the axis? I wonder if the photons would tend to spiral into the proton, the same way water spirals down a drain.
Is the electron to scale?
Miles said the electron blocks some of the photon stream. Did he say 30-some%? Has he explained why the electron doesn't get sucked right into the proton? He also said the electron orbits the axis, like a ball on water that's going down a drain, I think. Is it worth showing the electron circling around the axis? I wonder if the photons would tend to spiral into the proton, the same way water spirals down a drain.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
I made an attempt to make charge emission (only equatorial emission at this point and probably at all) be an absolute entity rather than tied to the position of the particle emitting it. I have the shader mostly written, but untested at this point as I need to change AV a little bit to accommodate the charge being global rather than local to the particle.
It was easier than I thought but there will be a performance hit, but I think I have minimized it and I think I can do even better with a few more changes. Basically, I am trying to limit the amount of data that needs to be sent to the GPU for these calculations and also the amount of data that needs to be updated per frame. I am currently updating, and sending, a 4x4 matrix per charge photon but the photons are in groups of X size and each group needs the same transform matrix so I should be able to reduce that to 1 matrix per group.
I can't wait to see what this looks like!
It was easier than I thought but there will be a performance hit, but I think I have minimized it and I think I can do even better with a few more changes. Basically, I am trying to limit the amount of data that needs to be sent to the GPU for these calculations and also the amount of data that needs to be updated per frame. I am currently updating, and sending, a 4x4 matrix per charge photon but the photons are in groups of X size and each group needs the same transform matrix so I should be able to reduce that to 1 matrix per group.
I can't wait to see what this looks like!
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Nevyn, what GPUs are you working with currently? It's a bit of a tech question, but for your reference I'm running some older hardware: a GTX 750Ti for my TV, a GTX 660 for my main rig, and a 550Ti and 460 for my two Piledrivers. Nothing fancy here. But so far, your applications run really solid on my computers. Keep doing what you're doing; it's terribly helpful. I just wish I could dig in more myself, but it's been quite a struggled with Maya on my end and I'm not far enough along in coding to make that work for us yet.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
My system has a R9 280X. Nothing too fancy but enough to do what I need. I have been thinking about upgrading when the Vega comes out. Probably won't be able to afford a full rebuild to get a Ryzen to go with it, but the thought is planted in my head. I really like the sound of those Vega cards. Hardware geometry occlusion sounds really good to someone that was about to implement software geometry occlusion!
I complement that with my work laptop that only has some little NVideo card in it. Not even sure what it is, to be honest, but it runs about 3 to 10 times slower than mine. But that is good because it gives me an idea of how my stuff works on a low-end graphics system. The CPU is a good i7 though, and my own system is only an i5 and that can help sometimes on the laptop.
I complement that with my work laptop that only has some little NVideo card in it. Not even sure what it is, to be honest, but it runs about 3 to 10 times slower than mine. But that is good because it gives me an idea of how my stuff works on a low-end graphics system. The CPU is a good i7 though, and my own system is only an i5 and that can help sometimes on the laptop.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Programming takes a little while to get your head around. Once you understand the basics of control structures (if, while, for loops, etc), data structures, the syntax of the language you are using and the things you can use in that language, it becomes easier. I think you will find that there is a steep initial learning curve but once you have that down, the rest is just doing what you do in the UI, but in code. At that point, everything will accelerate because you already know what it is you need to do and just need to figure out how to do that in the language.
Another thing to be aware of, especially in scripting languages, is the context of your code. When will it be run. What data will it have access to. What does it have to generate as output. When I started to learn how to write shaders, I had to find out all of these things. A lot of trial and error but once I understand the context, I could see how to do what I wanted. But I have over 2 decades of programming experience in many different languages and environments and that helps a lot. Especially in an industry that is in love with acronyms. Understanding the language used can be a nightmare in itself, and I don't mean the programming language but the concepts and the way programmers talk about things.
I have the opposite problem to you. I know how I would do something in code, because I pretty much think in code, but when I try to use a tool like Blender, the UI gets in my way and I don't know how to do it. When I figure out how the UI wants me to do it, I usually end up thinking that it is so much harder than doing it in the code. It can be difficult to keep doing things the hard way when you know you could get it done much quicker another way, but if I just go back to coding it, then I don't learn what the tools could do better.
Another thing to be aware of, especially in scripting languages, is the context of your code. When will it be run. What data will it have access to. What does it have to generate as output. When I started to learn how to write shaders, I had to find out all of these things. A lot of trial and error but once I understand the context, I could see how to do what I wanted. But I have over 2 decades of programming experience in many different languages and environments and that helps a lot. Especially in an industry that is in love with acronyms. Understanding the language used can be a nightmare in itself, and I don't mean the programming language but the concepts and the way programmers talk about things.
I have the opposite problem to you. I know how I would do something in code, because I pretty much think in code, but when I try to use a tool like Blender, the UI gets in my way and I don't know how to do it. When I figure out how the UI wants me to do it, I usually end up thinking that it is so much harder than doing it in the code. It can be difficult to keep doing things the hard way when you know you could get it done much quicker another way, but if I just go back to coding it, then I don't learn what the tools could do better.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Aye, I have only a little experience in code, BASIC and HTML, stuff like that. Maya's complexity isn't really helpful in this case, the learning curve is VERY steep for me and I'm making little progress. Which is partly why I've been doing a bit more animation lately - at least then I have something to show for it, and it helps to develop a visual look that will helpfully demonstrate these theories to layfolk and other physics junkies. I'm not giving up on hard-wiring the physics along with you on my end, just not letting Maya break my will and frustrate me too much.
Your stuff is really quite impressive, especially on the OpenGL end of things and your use of the GPU. Really neat stuff for me!
Have you played with Universe Sandbox² at all? I highly recommend trying the demo, for everyone. It has the standard model flaws but it's still really cool and visually impressive. I vaguely wonder how difficult it would be to recode something like this, or Kerbal Space Program for example, to behave according to charge physics and actual Pi.
Check it out sometime, my friends:
http://universesandbox.com/
Your stuff is really quite impressive, especially on the OpenGL end of things and your use of the GPU. Really neat stuff for me!
Have you played with Universe Sandbox² at all? I highly recommend trying the demo, for everyone. It has the standard model flaws but it's still really cool and visually impressive. I vaguely wonder how difficult it would be to recode something like this, or Kerbal Space Program for example, to behave according to charge physics and actual Pi.
Check it out sometime, my friends:
http://universesandbox.com/
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
I've seen Universe Sandbox on Steam and thought about having a look at it, but the mainstream assumptions turned me away. I did buy Kerbal Space Program but haven't spent a lot of time in it.
I started building a solar system sandbox of my own with the hope of incorporating Miles physics into it but got sidetracked on making everything rotate according to standard physics (not using standard physics, just rotating things to match it). I tried to calculate things like the charge vectors just to show above a planet, as an arrow, but it didn't work out very well. I could probably do a better job now since I have a bit more experience in the math. The original version was written in Java3D but I did port it to ThreeJS to run in the browser but I didn't put it up on my site when I moved to Linode as it wasn't very good. You can read about it here: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t126-simple-orbiter
I started building a solar system sandbox of my own with the hope of incorporating Miles physics into it but got sidetracked on making everything rotate according to standard physics (not using standard physics, just rotating things to match it). I tried to calculate things like the charge vectors just to show above a planet, as an arrow, but it didn't work out very well. I could probably do a better job now since I have a bit more experience in the math. The original version was written in Java3D but I did port it to ThreeJS to run in the browser but I didn't put it up on my site when I moved to Linode as it wasn't very good. You can read about it here: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t126-simple-orbiter
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
I should just start with a simple 2-body scenario and work out the charge field and gravity vectors. I think I was trying to do too much too quick in the previous apps. Once that math is working, it becomes easier to build an entire solar system and more importantly, how to fit it together to work with that math.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
.
9 Awesome Science Tricks Using Static Electricity! My Only complaint: The table top material is not identified. On the Hover plate materials image (0:08-0:10) draw a horizontal line under the words “styrofoam plates”, where the line would intersect the table it looks like a sheet of material is covering the table, it doesn’t appear to be either glass or Plexiglas since there are no clear reflections. Maybe it’s a vinyl. Polycarbonate sheets are used in Bubble trouble and Dancing balls.
The pvc pipe is central in all but the Hover plate and Dancing balls displays, so I’ll address it first.
One can reduce a nuclei’s charge emission by blocking the nuclei’s charge intake. It follows that one can increase emission by unblocking intake. It turns out that that is a correct statement, because electrons are present, both free and blocking nuclei’s charge intakes. As I’ve previously indicated, I believe rubbing the pvc pipe with cloth removes electrons from charge intake positions on the pipe’s surface. The pipe is thereby ionized. I imagine there are many individual charge streams, each originating at separate surface protons. Charge streams can be positive or negative, sometimes reinforcing, adding to the coherency of these individual charge streams. I don’t know the molecular structure; I don’t assume all charge streams align all neat and tidy, matched and radially aligned. Electrostatically, I expect the surface would appear to be a random yet fractal-like collection of positive or negative charge areas. If so, one cannot say the pipe’s entire emitted field is magnetic.
We have a high number of high strength coherent photons being emitted by the pipe’s surface. The pipe will remain “charged” until motion subsides and sufficient time has elapsed to allow electrons to drift in between those charge currents and gas atoms; returning to the pipe surface and joining recycling currents, sometimes partially blocking large photon current intake locations, and so de-ionize the pipe.
While the pipe is “statically charged”, many of the pipe’s surface molecules are emitting positive or negative photon flows at full volume. Moving the pipe about, sweeps those currents across air (atoms molecules) and other nearby proton matter, dislodging their loosely held electrons, and ionizing them too. Free electrons are swept away. These overlapping charge fields are at measurably higher electrostatic energy levels. They were created by the removal of both free and loosely bound electrons, so we begin at an electron deficiency. Also, many nuclei are operating at higher output, which means that their intake photons are at a lower density, they must be fed at a higher rate, an increased current flow inward, a higher inward charge pressure differential to match the higher coherent emissions. I believe the suction/wind analogies correspond to these charge and electron pressure differentials.
1. 0:08 Hover plate. Styrofoam plates and cloths. Large plate upside down on a tabletop. The smaller plate is rubbed with cloth: The smaller plate will not sit on the larger, but will fall away to the side instead. If a hand is held above the plates, the small plate looks more horizontally stable, raising to a greater height, appearing to be attracted to, and then sticking to her hand. When gently shaken, the plate did not break free, or loose, from her hand.
The small plate is ionized, but it’s too small to completely ionize the larger plate. This results in an electrostatic potential difference between the plates, with the resulting net recycling charge flow directed upward toward the smaller plate. This charge current flow upward is supplemented by the Earth’s own upward charge emission. The small plate is emitting coherent streams downward (ignoring the top of the plate), and coherent streams are also emitted upwards by the larger plate which also prevent the smaller plate from resting on the larger one.
Placing a hand above both plates changes the charge flows slightly. If clean and dry, the hand’s skin over the small plate is ionized, though with far less coherent emissions, and far less repulsion to the small plate. Given that all other charge flows are upward, the small plate’s upward emissions are too small to prevent contact with the hand, making it appear the small plate is attracted to the hand.
2. 0:36 Can can go. Aluminum can, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. After rubbing the pipe with cloth, the pipe can lead the can back and forth on the table through an apparent attraction. No repulsion is shown.
Sweeping the charged pvc pipe about the can removes many of the can’s, (and air’s) loosely bound electrons. There is a resulting electron deficiency between the charged pipe and the can. At the same time, the can blocks a small portion of the pipe’s emitted field. The surrounding charge field is also greater on the far side of the can. The result is a higher number of electron and surrounding charge field collisions with the far side of the can. This force, the result of uneven electron and charge field collisions, between near and far sides of the can (with respect to the pipe’s charge field), causes the can to roll toward the charged pipe.
3. 0:56 Stick around. Tape, match, thread, glass jar, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. Suspend matchstick from interior of upside down glass jar. After rubbing the pipe with cloth, the matchstick can affected by the pvc moving outside the jar. The matchstick is appears to either repel or attract the matchstick. The matchstick may rat-a-tat against the glass; or it may make a single contact and remain in contact with the glass and even if the pipe is removed. the stick may remain in contact for several seconds before dropping to normal suspension.
The glass jar is not a barrier to photons or electrons, only air . The stick is far smaller than an aluminum can, it stick can react far more readily to collisions from random electrons or positive or negative photon flows, without seeming to favor attraction or repulsion. Occasionally the match stick will bump against the glass jar and remain due to the creation of a small number of, stick-to-glass, proton/proton bonds.
4. 1:43 Bubble trouble. Polycarbonate sheet, a straw, bubble solution, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. Blow bubbles on the table and lead the bubbles about the wet surface with the cloth rubbed pvc pipe. Bubbles distort and are attracted to the pipe, too close and the bubbles pop.
I believe this electrostatic display can be described along the same lines as Can can go – an apparent attraction due to the relative electron deficiency between bubble and pipe; electrons are hitting the far side of the bubble far more than from the pipe side. And increased recycling charge flow toward the charged pvc pipe. The polysheet is just a wet surface. It’s noteworthy that the pipe’s high energy coherent emission streams do not break the bubble’s surface sooner, assuming of course that it ultimately does, if the bubble gets too close. There must be a scant supply of removable electrons in water or else the bubble would break sooner. I could see the backside horizontal surface of the bubble moving slowest toward the pipe. The bubble is pushed to the pipe, it is also deformed, which may indicate 1/r, or 1/r^2. The camera, or viewing axis is ideally along a bisector line. The pipe would also be best placed along that line - or the display may be improved without the camera being in the way.
5. 2:19 Dancing balls. Blocks, aluminum foil, polycarbonate sheet, styrofoam balls, paper towel, paper tray and cloth. Wrap many tiny Styrofoam balls with aluminum, of course in some places there is a single layer of foil, in other places there could be several folded layers. Place a sheet of aluminum foil on a paper tray. Place blocks in the corners, wipe sheet with cloth then place sheet onto the blocks (over the foil). Place aluminum covered balls on or under the poly sheet.
This was my favorite display. When they all jumped up and moved about on the bottom-side of the transparent sheet, I heard applause.
The transparent sheet is ionized and placed on the blocks. The sheet emits high energy coherent streams, presumably vertically downward (we can ignore any upward emissions). The sheet has sufficient charge mass to easily ionize the other materials below it. The foil covered paper tray is ionized least, yet it provides vertical emissions upward to help suspend the aluminum clad styrofoam balls. Much of the sheet’s recycling charge enters the sheet from below, and so it is also an upward force against the balls. The Earth’s charge field then adds a third upward push. These forces are opposed by 1) the balls’ gravity, also 2) downward directed sheet repulsion against the balls. I suppose the downward directed repulsion is reduced by the fact that direct contact with the balls minimized their electrostatic difference, the balls and sheet no longer repel. When disturbed, the balls have sufficient coherent emissions to easily interact with each other, adding to the action.
A finger moving above the sheet has ionized skin with a reduced number coherent emissions. The finger is far less efficient compared to the charged pipe, yet the ionized finger is sufficient to mess with a bunch of suspended aluminum clad styrofoam balls. The ball is pushed about by coherent emissions at high initial speeds, but passing through adjacent channels can stop the motion just as quickly. When the balls are placed on the topside of the sheet they have even more energy to move about, which is probably why she showed just one ball in that position.
6. 3:39 Water bender. Cloth rubbed pvc pipe seems to attract a small water flow.
The charged pipe begins to radiate the water as soon as it exits the faucet. There is no apparent repulsive force, direct emissions from the charged pipe may have little to no effect. Based on Bubble trouble, I don’t believe we can ionize water. Instead, like the Can can go, and Bubble trouble examples, inward directed charge flows toward the pipe push the far side of the water toward the charged pipe. When gravity and water viscosity finally have their way, the stream quickly turns downward; note that smaller droplets can be observed to continue further along their previous track.
7. 3:47 Balloon fight. Thread, pvc rigid pipe, cloth string and balloons. A cloth rubbed pvc pipe can repel small balloons suspended from the ceiling, divert them to one side or another.
This example is the opposite of Can can go, and Bubble trouble. We have no apparent attraction, just repulsion. Why do the balloons stop before approaching the pipe too closely? I believe the vinyl surface of the balloons ensures that there will always be an electrostatic potential difference between the pipe and balloons. This ensures that there will always be strong mutual emission repulsion, until things d-ionize.
8. 4:12 Electroscope. Steel wire, straw, aluminum, glass jar with cork cover, pvc rigid pipe, and cloth balloons. Suspend foil on wire in jar, the wire passes through a straw and loops at the top. The foils squares will react to the charged pvc.
The two tiny suspended foil leaves (along with the rest of the apparatus) are ionized by the charged pipe. The two leaves probably maintain a small electrostatic potential difference, their mutual coherent emissions cause the leaves spread apart. As everything deionizes, the leaves again return to their vertical positions, no longer interacting with one another.
9. 5:14 Wingardium leviosa. Various plastic bags, pvc rigid pipe, and cloth. The rubbed pvc can prevent a plastic sheet from falling.
The pipe ionizes the plastic similarly to the ballons in Balloon fight. There will always be an electrostatic potential difference between the pipe and ‘floating’ plastic. This is strictly a display of mutual emission repulsion from the charged pipe and plastic.
.
Thanks Lloyd, Nice video. Explaining them all is a tall order! If Miles were to describe them, we might all agree; until then, we clearly don’t. We’re free to speculate, consistent with the charge field and many of Miles’ examples.Lloyd wrote: There are 9 static electricity experiments shown on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y
Some look like wind, and others look like suction. Is there suction and wind in each case, but just not showing one or the other? How does suction/attraction work?
9 Awesome Science Tricks Using Static Electricity! My Only complaint: The table top material is not identified. On the Hover plate materials image (0:08-0:10) draw a horizontal line under the words “styrofoam plates”, where the line would intersect the table it looks like a sheet of material is covering the table, it doesn’t appear to be either glass or Plexiglas since there are no clear reflections. Maybe it’s a vinyl. Polycarbonate sheets are used in Bubble trouble and Dancing balls.
The pvc pipe is central in all but the Hover plate and Dancing balls displays, so I’ll address it first.
One can reduce a nuclei’s charge emission by blocking the nuclei’s charge intake. It follows that one can increase emission by unblocking intake. It turns out that that is a correct statement, because electrons are present, both free and blocking nuclei’s charge intakes. As I’ve previously indicated, I believe rubbing the pvc pipe with cloth removes electrons from charge intake positions on the pipe’s surface. The pipe is thereby ionized. I imagine there are many individual charge streams, each originating at separate surface protons. Charge streams can be positive or negative, sometimes reinforcing, adding to the coherency of these individual charge streams. I don’t know the molecular structure; I don’t assume all charge streams align all neat and tidy, matched and radially aligned. Electrostatically, I expect the surface would appear to be a random yet fractal-like collection of positive or negative charge areas. If so, one cannot say the pipe’s entire emitted field is magnetic.
We have a high number of high strength coherent photons being emitted by the pipe’s surface. The pipe will remain “charged” until motion subsides and sufficient time has elapsed to allow electrons to drift in between those charge currents and gas atoms; returning to the pipe surface and joining recycling currents, sometimes partially blocking large photon current intake locations, and so de-ionize the pipe.
While the pipe is “statically charged”, many of the pipe’s surface molecules are emitting positive or negative photon flows at full volume. Moving the pipe about, sweeps those currents across air (atoms molecules) and other nearby proton matter, dislodging their loosely held electrons, and ionizing them too. Free electrons are swept away. These overlapping charge fields are at measurably higher electrostatic energy levels. They were created by the removal of both free and loosely bound electrons, so we begin at an electron deficiency. Also, many nuclei are operating at higher output, which means that their intake photons are at a lower density, they must be fed at a higher rate, an increased current flow inward, a higher inward charge pressure differential to match the higher coherent emissions. I believe the suction/wind analogies correspond to these charge and electron pressure differentials.
1. 0:08 Hover plate. Styrofoam plates and cloths. Large plate upside down on a tabletop. The smaller plate is rubbed with cloth: The smaller plate will not sit on the larger, but will fall away to the side instead. If a hand is held above the plates, the small plate looks more horizontally stable, raising to a greater height, appearing to be attracted to, and then sticking to her hand. When gently shaken, the plate did not break free, or loose, from her hand.
The small plate is ionized, but it’s too small to completely ionize the larger plate. This results in an electrostatic potential difference between the plates, with the resulting net recycling charge flow directed upward toward the smaller plate. This charge current flow upward is supplemented by the Earth’s own upward charge emission. The small plate is emitting coherent streams downward (ignoring the top of the plate), and coherent streams are also emitted upwards by the larger plate which also prevent the smaller plate from resting on the larger one.
Placing a hand above both plates changes the charge flows slightly. If clean and dry, the hand’s skin over the small plate is ionized, though with far less coherent emissions, and far less repulsion to the small plate. Given that all other charge flows are upward, the small plate’s upward emissions are too small to prevent contact with the hand, making it appear the small plate is attracted to the hand.
2. 0:36 Can can go. Aluminum can, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. After rubbing the pipe with cloth, the pipe can lead the can back and forth on the table through an apparent attraction. No repulsion is shown.
Sweeping the charged pvc pipe about the can removes many of the can’s, (and air’s) loosely bound electrons. There is a resulting electron deficiency between the charged pipe and the can. At the same time, the can blocks a small portion of the pipe’s emitted field. The surrounding charge field is also greater on the far side of the can. The result is a higher number of electron and surrounding charge field collisions with the far side of the can. This force, the result of uneven electron and charge field collisions, between near and far sides of the can (with respect to the pipe’s charge field), causes the can to roll toward the charged pipe.
3. 0:56 Stick around. Tape, match, thread, glass jar, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. Suspend matchstick from interior of upside down glass jar. After rubbing the pipe with cloth, the matchstick can affected by the pvc moving outside the jar. The matchstick is appears to either repel or attract the matchstick. The matchstick may rat-a-tat against the glass; or it may make a single contact and remain in contact with the glass and even if the pipe is removed. the stick may remain in contact for several seconds before dropping to normal suspension.
The glass jar is not a barrier to photons or electrons, only air . The stick is far smaller than an aluminum can, it stick can react far more readily to collisions from random electrons or positive or negative photon flows, without seeming to favor attraction or repulsion. Occasionally the match stick will bump against the glass jar and remain due to the creation of a small number of, stick-to-glass, proton/proton bonds.
4. 1:43 Bubble trouble. Polycarbonate sheet, a straw, bubble solution, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. Blow bubbles on the table and lead the bubbles about the wet surface with the cloth rubbed pvc pipe. Bubbles distort and are attracted to the pipe, too close and the bubbles pop.
I believe this electrostatic display can be described along the same lines as Can can go – an apparent attraction due to the relative electron deficiency between bubble and pipe; electrons are hitting the far side of the bubble far more than from the pipe side. And increased recycling charge flow toward the charged pvc pipe. The polysheet is just a wet surface. It’s noteworthy that the pipe’s high energy coherent emission streams do not break the bubble’s surface sooner, assuming of course that it ultimately does, if the bubble gets too close. There must be a scant supply of removable electrons in water or else the bubble would break sooner. I could see the backside horizontal surface of the bubble moving slowest toward the pipe. The bubble is pushed to the pipe, it is also deformed, which may indicate 1/r, or 1/r^2. The camera, or viewing axis is ideally along a bisector line. The pipe would also be best placed along that line - or the display may be improved without the camera being in the way.
5. 2:19 Dancing balls. Blocks, aluminum foil, polycarbonate sheet, styrofoam balls, paper towel, paper tray and cloth. Wrap many tiny Styrofoam balls with aluminum, of course in some places there is a single layer of foil, in other places there could be several folded layers. Place a sheet of aluminum foil on a paper tray. Place blocks in the corners, wipe sheet with cloth then place sheet onto the blocks (over the foil). Place aluminum covered balls on or under the poly sheet.
This was my favorite display. When they all jumped up and moved about on the bottom-side of the transparent sheet, I heard applause.
The transparent sheet is ionized and placed on the blocks. The sheet emits high energy coherent streams, presumably vertically downward (we can ignore any upward emissions). The sheet has sufficient charge mass to easily ionize the other materials below it. The foil covered paper tray is ionized least, yet it provides vertical emissions upward to help suspend the aluminum clad styrofoam balls. Much of the sheet’s recycling charge enters the sheet from below, and so it is also an upward force against the balls. The Earth’s charge field then adds a third upward push. These forces are opposed by 1) the balls’ gravity, also 2) downward directed sheet repulsion against the balls. I suppose the downward directed repulsion is reduced by the fact that direct contact with the balls minimized their electrostatic difference, the balls and sheet no longer repel. When disturbed, the balls have sufficient coherent emissions to easily interact with each other, adding to the action.
A finger moving above the sheet has ionized skin with a reduced number coherent emissions. The finger is far less efficient compared to the charged pipe, yet the ionized finger is sufficient to mess with a bunch of suspended aluminum clad styrofoam balls. The ball is pushed about by coherent emissions at high initial speeds, but passing through adjacent channels can stop the motion just as quickly. When the balls are placed on the topside of the sheet they have even more energy to move about, which is probably why she showed just one ball in that position.
6. 3:39 Water bender. Cloth rubbed pvc pipe seems to attract a small water flow.
The charged pipe begins to radiate the water as soon as it exits the faucet. There is no apparent repulsive force, direct emissions from the charged pipe may have little to no effect. Based on Bubble trouble, I don’t believe we can ionize water. Instead, like the Can can go, and Bubble trouble examples, inward directed charge flows toward the pipe push the far side of the water toward the charged pipe. When gravity and water viscosity finally have their way, the stream quickly turns downward; note that smaller droplets can be observed to continue further along their previous track.
7. 3:47 Balloon fight. Thread, pvc rigid pipe, cloth string and balloons. A cloth rubbed pvc pipe can repel small balloons suspended from the ceiling, divert them to one side or another.
This example is the opposite of Can can go, and Bubble trouble. We have no apparent attraction, just repulsion. Why do the balloons stop before approaching the pipe too closely? I believe the vinyl surface of the balloons ensures that there will always be an electrostatic potential difference between the pipe and balloons. This ensures that there will always be strong mutual emission repulsion, until things d-ionize.
8. 4:12 Electroscope. Steel wire, straw, aluminum, glass jar with cork cover, pvc rigid pipe, and cloth balloons. Suspend foil on wire in jar, the wire passes through a straw and loops at the top. The foils squares will react to the charged pvc.
The two tiny suspended foil leaves (along with the rest of the apparatus) are ionized by the charged pipe. The two leaves probably maintain a small electrostatic potential difference, their mutual coherent emissions cause the leaves spread apart. As everything deionizes, the leaves again return to their vertical positions, no longer interacting with one another.
9. 5:14 Wingardium leviosa. Various plastic bags, pvc rigid pipe, and cloth. The rubbed pvc can prevent a plastic sheet from falling.
The pipe ionizes the plastic similarly to the ballons in Balloon fight. There will always be an electrostatic potential difference between the pipe and ‘floating’ plastic. This is strictly a display of mutual emission repulsion from the charged pipe and plastic.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2023
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Jared Magneson wrote:I'd really like to get up to the proton level with my other stacked spin stacking setup and import that into my nuclear one, but I'm still a bit confused as to what spin level the proton is right now. I thought it was three spins above the electron in motion, but our recent conversations have me a bit lost on that front.
Yes, this is a problem at the moment and we do need to figure it out, but we can take some short-cuts in the animations by recognizing the differences between spin levels and the forms they take. By playing with SpinSim, you can see what form the top spin level takes as you add more spin levels beneath it. It turns out that anything above the bottom spin levels (A, X, Y, Z), looks the same. That is, having spin levels A, (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z) looks the same, with slight differences, to A, (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z) which looks the same as A, (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z). The inner spins are so small compared to the outer spin, that they don't make much difference and the more spin levels you add the smaller the first levels become.
This means that we can animate a spin with 7 levels no matter the particle we are trying to create. There are differences between protons and neutrons and the same differences between electrons and nectrons, but we can deal with that because the differences are in the top 3 spin levels. These differences are determined by the relationship between the highest X spin and the highest Z spin. If they are the same spin direction (+ve or -ve) then they create one particle (I can't remember which way around they are at the moment), let's say that is a proton or electron, but if they are different signs then they create the other type of particle.
So all we need to worry about is the initial size of the BPhoton used to create the spins. That is, the real BPhoton is a certain size, let's just say it is 1 for simplicity, and that will create realistic spins and we can add as many levels as we need to reach whatever particle we want to create, let's call the number of spin levels N. But we can also use a BPhoton that has a radius of 8 which will look roughly the same as the previous particle but we only need N-3 spin levels. Use a BPhoton radius of 64 and we only need N-6 levels. Essentially, we are saying that the inner spins are fairly inconsequential, so we just represent them with a BPhoton of the correct size.
This is also great for performance. We don't need to calculate an arbitrary number of spin levels, we just need to calculate 7. We still need to know the differences in size of the various particles though, but we can assume the 3 or 4 spin level difference Miles states (depending on if you use higher axial spins) and work from there. In doing that, we might find that we stumble across the answer we want.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
That's brilliant. I hadn't realized you'd gotten so far, and it sure will take a load off the nDynamics I've been using for rigid body particles. A huge difference. At worst, I'd really only have to instance 7 spinners, instead of two for each stack, multiplying up through the electron and proton level. For the sake of animation it would be just dandy!
I can kinda see how the additional axial spin would add momentum or "mass", if it's adding yet another vector/velocity. But I can't see how axial spins would increase the radius. They don't on the first B-photon axial spin. So I think we discount those for radius, but count them for mass and energy?
Nevyn wrote:We still need to know the differences in size of the various particles though, but we can assume the 3 or 4 spin level difference Miles states (depending on if you use higher axial spins) and work from there. In doing that, we might find that we stumble across the answer we want.
I can kinda see how the additional axial spin would add momentum or "mass", if it's adding yet another vector/velocity. But I can't see how axial spins would increase the radius. They don't on the first B-photon axial spin. So I think we discount those for radius, but count them for mass and energy?
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
I discount them completely and only mention them for completeness since my opinion differs from Miles. The very first axial spin adds to mass and energy and if you accept higher axial spins then they will also add to mass and energy.
Which is actually interesting because they add mass in my theory of spin velocity as mass but they don't add mass if it is based on size, like how Miles has used the radius to explain mass (he was actually explaining the slowing of larger particles but that equates to mass). I think there is a lot of work still to be done in this area.
Which is actually interesting because they add mass in my theory of spin velocity as mass but they don't add mass if it is based on size, like how Miles has used the radius to explain mass (he was actually explaining the slowing of larger particles but that equates to mass). I think there is a lot of work still to be done in this area.
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Regarding Tesla's energy propagation tech. Found this Wikipedia link on Zenneck Waves. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenneck_wave
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Zenneck
A company in Texas has a tower built.
https://vizivtechnologies.com/about/
https://texashillcountry.com/mysterious-tesla-tower-texas/
Miles' Take on Sommerfeld-Drude:
http://milesmathis.com/drude.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Zenneck
A company in Texas has a tower built.
https://vizivtechnologies.com/about/
https://texashillcountry.com/mysterious-tesla-tower-texas/
Miles' Take on Sommerfeld-Drude:
http://milesmathis.com/drude.pdf
Last edited by Chromium6 on Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Chromium6- Posts : 723
Join date : 2019-11-29
Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation
Just wanted to post this article:
Wireless Power-Data Transmission for Industrial Internet of Things: Simulations and Experiments
Publisher: IEEE
Abstract:
One of the key challenges in the practical realization of industrial internet of things (IoT) is overcoming Faraday shielding of free space electromagnetic waves emanating from the antennas of wireless systems used for power and data transfer. Metallic structures, machinery, pipeline, etc., cause interference resulting in the loss of signal connectivity among sensor network. Currently available techniques based on ultrasonic-electromagnetic transducers pose severe limitations on frequency, efficiency, and alignment. Here we demonstrate exciting Zenneck type interface waves propagating as localized charge oscillations (modes) along the metal profile, which overcomes the restrictions on frequency, metal obstacles, partial enclosures, and alignment. A finite element methods (FEM) model developed to predict the signal reception and power transfer efficiency across metal infrastructure shows excellent agreement with the experimental results. Electrical power transfer using Zenneck, under open conditions, show 4% drop for distance of 1 to 8 meters (68 to 64%), and 9% drop under shielded conditions for the same range (66 to 57%). For data transmission results, we demonstrate a feasibility, for an input power of 0dBm with several metallic pipelines as obstacles show received power of -11.8 dBm and -19.01 dBm at 6 and 25 meters, respectively.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9222125
Experimental Realization of Zenneck Type Wave-based Non-Radiative, Non-Coupled Wireless Power Transmission
Sai Kiran Oruganti, Feifei Liu, [...], and Franklin Bien
A decade ago, non-radiative wireless power transmission re-emerged as a promising alternative to deliver electrical power to devices where a physical wiring proved impracticable. However, conventional “coupling-based” approaches face performance issues when multiple devices are involved, as they are restricted by factors like coupling and external environments. Zenneck waves are excited at interfaces, like surface plasmons and have the potential to deliver electrical power to devices placed on a conducting surface. Here, we demonstrate, efficient and long range delivery of electrical power by exciting non-radiative waves over metal surfaces to multiple loads. Our modeling and simulation using Maxwell’s equation with proper boundary conditions shows Zenneck type behavior for the excited waves and are in excellent agreement with experimental results. In conclusion, we physically realize a radically different class of power transfer system, based on a wave, whose existence has been fiercely debated for over a century.
Introduction
In 2007, coupled WPT re-emerged as an alternative to deliver electrical power to systems where physical wiring is difficult or dangerous 1,2. Since then, a number of notable articles appeared 3 – 5 . However, these were improvements or at the best variations of the coupled WPT systems originally proposed in2 .
All the existing WPT systems (Inductive, magnetic resonance and capacitive; far field systems not included) rely on critical coupling between coils of the transmitter and receiver for efficient delivery of power 2 – 7 . The resonance conditions are easily affected by the external factors[size=34][size=11]6 – 8. It has also been well understood that the need for a critical coupling leads to peak splitting phenomena for multiple resonant devices7. This causes efficiency degradation and hence, are unsuitable for emerging fields such as, internet of things (IoT) and dynamic charging of electrical vehicles. Therefore, parity time circuits method was proposed to resolve the issue of dynamic wireless charging6. Unfortunately, we will continue to face these limitations due to our reliance on critical coupling between the transmitter and receiver8.
A non-radiating wave-based wireless power transfer system would be a desirable candidate to solve some of these issues. Quite a few wave based systems in the μ-wave regime have appeared over the years. A detailed literature survey of these systems has been carried out in the Supplementary Material. Also, WPT systems saw the usage of magneto-inductive planar waveguide 9 . This kind of WPT system utilizes the concept of meta-materials and generation of standing waves. Presumably, this is the meta-material equivalent of the quarter-wave Tesla transformer.
We wish to draw the attention to Zenneck wave (Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave), which resides at the metal-air interface, akin to surface plasmons (SP) and surface waves (SW)10,11[/size]. All these three classes of interface waves are near-field phenomenon12. While SP and surface wave (SW) have been widely researched areas in optical physics and metasurfaces, they are relatively less studied in the microwave regime 12 – 15 . Likewise, much research around ZW is focused on the communications and geophysics applications[size=34]13, 16[/size],17 . Unfortunately, ZW has been surrounded by the controversies pertaining to their physical existence[size=34]14, 15[/size],18[/size]. The bulk of the controversy arose from the alleged “sign error” committed by Sommerfeld in 1909[size=34]14,[size=11]15. Some authors have shown feasibility of such waves by recreating the critical Seneca lake experiment to debunk the Sommerfeld sign error myth19 . However, articles like these lack scientific rigor 19 , this further brings disorderliness to the existing controversy.
Quite literally, one does not find any study on the utilization of ZW for non-radiative power transfer. Recently in 2014 and 2017 Sarkar et al, have taken great pains to clarify the confusions arising due to the definitions of SW, SP and ZW through their mathematically rigorous articles 14 , 15 . The properties exhibited by ZW’s are like SW and SP, with certain differences. All these three physical phenomena are transverse magnetic (TM) modes and exhibit evanescent field decay away from the metal-air or metal-dielectric or conductive-dielectric interface. Unlike SW, the ZW come into existence as a result of zero of the TM reflection coefficient. SP come into existence at the quasi-particle levels. Whereas, ZW propagate in the form of localized charge oscillations. Just like SW and SP, when ZW are excited on metal surfaces, the net flow of current is zero. The Brewster angle of incidence in case of ZW is frequency independent. Therefore, the attenuation of ZW waves is also frequency independent and the attenuation rate is slow in the transverse direction 14 , 15 . They sink into a lossy dielectric media, as mathematically demonstrated by Barlow and Cullens in their classic article 20 . This sinking phenomenon was later experimentally demonstrated in the articles 16 , 21 .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976601/
Wireless Power-Data Transmission for Industrial Internet of Things: Simulations and Experiments
Publisher: IEEE
Abstract:
One of the key challenges in the practical realization of industrial internet of things (IoT) is overcoming Faraday shielding of free space electromagnetic waves emanating from the antennas of wireless systems used for power and data transfer. Metallic structures, machinery, pipeline, etc., cause interference resulting in the loss of signal connectivity among sensor network. Currently available techniques based on ultrasonic-electromagnetic transducers pose severe limitations on frequency, efficiency, and alignment. Here we demonstrate exciting Zenneck type interface waves propagating as localized charge oscillations (modes) along the metal profile, which overcomes the restrictions on frequency, metal obstacles, partial enclosures, and alignment. A finite element methods (FEM) model developed to predict the signal reception and power transfer efficiency across metal infrastructure shows excellent agreement with the experimental results. Electrical power transfer using Zenneck, under open conditions, show 4% drop for distance of 1 to 8 meters (68 to 64%), and 9% drop under shielded conditions for the same range (66 to 57%). For data transmission results, we demonstrate a feasibility, for an input power of 0dBm with several metallic pipelines as obstacles show received power of -11.8 dBm and -19.01 dBm at 6 and 25 meters, respectively.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9222125
Experimental Realization of Zenneck Type Wave-based Non-Radiative, Non-Coupled Wireless Power Transmission
Sai Kiran Oruganti, Feifei Liu, [...], and Franklin Bien
Abstract
A decade ago, non-radiative wireless power transmission re-emerged as a promising alternative to deliver electrical power to devices where a physical wiring proved impracticable. However, conventional “coupling-based” approaches face performance issues when multiple devices are involved, as they are restricted by factors like coupling and external environments. Zenneck waves are excited at interfaces, like surface plasmons and have the potential to deliver electrical power to devices placed on a conducting surface. Here, we demonstrate, efficient and long range delivery of electrical power by exciting non-radiative waves over metal surfaces to multiple loads. Our modeling and simulation using Maxwell’s equation with proper boundary conditions shows Zenneck type behavior for the excited waves and are in excellent agreement with experimental results. In conclusion, we physically realize a radically different class of power transfer system, based on a wave, whose existence has been fiercely debated for over a century.
Introduction
In 2007, coupled WPT re-emerged as an alternative to deliver electrical power to systems where physical wiring is difficult or dangerous 1,2. Since then, a number of notable articles appeared 3 – 5 . However, these were improvements or at the best variations of the coupled WPT systems originally proposed in2 .
All the existing WPT systems (Inductive, magnetic resonance and capacitive; far field systems not included) rely on critical coupling between coils of the transmitter and receiver for efficient delivery of power 2 – 7 . The resonance conditions are easily affected by the external factors[size=34][size=11]6 – 8. It has also been well understood that the need for a critical coupling leads to peak splitting phenomena for multiple resonant devices7. This causes efficiency degradation and hence, are unsuitable for emerging fields such as, internet of things (IoT) and dynamic charging of electrical vehicles. Therefore, parity time circuits method was proposed to resolve the issue of dynamic wireless charging6. Unfortunately, we will continue to face these limitations due to our reliance on critical coupling between the transmitter and receiver8.
A non-radiating wave-based wireless power transfer system would be a desirable candidate to solve some of these issues. Quite a few wave based systems in the μ-wave regime have appeared over the years. A detailed literature survey of these systems has been carried out in the Supplementary Material. Also, WPT systems saw the usage of magneto-inductive planar waveguide 9 . This kind of WPT system utilizes the concept of meta-materials and generation of standing waves. Presumably, this is the meta-material equivalent of the quarter-wave Tesla transformer.
We wish to draw the attention to Zenneck wave (Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave), which resides at the metal-air interface, akin to surface plasmons (SP) and surface waves (SW)10,11[/size]. All these three classes of interface waves are near-field phenomenon12. While SP and surface wave (SW) have been widely researched areas in optical physics and metasurfaces, they are relatively less studied in the microwave regime 12 – 15 . Likewise, much research around ZW is focused on the communications and geophysics applications[size=34]13, 16[/size],17 . Unfortunately, ZW has been surrounded by the controversies pertaining to their physical existence[size=34]14, 15[/size],18[/size]. The bulk of the controversy arose from the alleged “sign error” committed by Sommerfeld in 1909[size=34]14,[size=11]15. Some authors have shown feasibility of such waves by recreating the critical Seneca lake experiment to debunk the Sommerfeld sign error myth19 . However, articles like these lack scientific rigor 19 , this further brings disorderliness to the existing controversy.
Quite literally, one does not find any study on the utilization of ZW for non-radiative power transfer. Recently in 2014 and 2017 Sarkar et al, have taken great pains to clarify the confusions arising due to the definitions of SW, SP and ZW through their mathematically rigorous articles 14 , 15 . The properties exhibited by ZW’s are like SW and SP, with certain differences. All these three physical phenomena are transverse magnetic (TM) modes and exhibit evanescent field decay away from the metal-air or metal-dielectric or conductive-dielectric interface. Unlike SW, the ZW come into existence as a result of zero of the TM reflection coefficient. SP come into existence at the quasi-particle levels. Whereas, ZW propagate in the form of localized charge oscillations. Just like SW and SP, when ZW are excited on metal surfaces, the net flow of current is zero. The Brewster angle of incidence in case of ZW is frequency independent. Therefore, the attenuation of ZW waves is also frequency independent and the attenuation rate is slow in the transverse direction 14 , 15 . They sink into a lossy dielectric media, as mathematically demonstrated by Barlow and Cullens in their classic article 20 . This sinking phenomenon was later experimentally demonstrated in the articles 16 , 21 .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976601/
Chromium6- Posts : 723
Join date : 2019-11-29
Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Similar topics
» Weekly Discussion Proposal
» Another Animation Boondoggle?
» Animation - The Tilt of the Planets
» Sticky Tape Mystery
» Particle Drifts in Space
» Another Animation Boondoggle?
» Animation - The Tilt of the Planets
» Sticky Tape Mystery
» Particle Drifts in Space
Page 4 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|