Ideas for Applications and Animations

Simulating, or animating, a compass needle is just a specific case of two magnetic fields meeting, which I definitely want to do. I want to get a single magnetic field working first, though, and then build on that.

Atom's Appl Pi

B = uI/2Pi r --- We keep the distance, r, constant so we can take that out. Same with the permeability of free space, it is a constant so we remove it from the ratio. That leaves us with B = I/2Pi.

Nevyn, what value are you using for Pi? Are you using radians? Normally, we'd say 3.14 or according to Miles 4. In that case B = I/6.28 or I/8 = 15.9%I or 12.5%I.

Backwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gs1hEnbrNM
_N:  I want to get a single magnetic field working first, though, and then build on that.
_L: Why not work backwards from the effect of the field on a compass needle to the field itself and then to the source/s of the field?
1. How would spinning photons moving at c in charge streams have to be oriented on average to move a compass needle in a certain direction?
2. What shape would the entire dominant magnetic field have, as determined by placing the compass in several random locations around the source/s?
3. What arrangements of atomic structure etc would produce such a field shape?
4. How would such structure be produced?

Spare
https://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/s23.png
For your spare time I have another project request. How about simulating Lift on a Wing or a Kite or Something? Why does an object have to move in order to stay aloft? I assume it's like skipping a rock on water. Right?

That is Pi = 3.14 because it represents a circle. Basically, what they have done is realised that the magnetic field strength is proportional to current strength. Saw that the magnetic field is around the wire and that led to the first stage of the equation: B = I/2Pi.

Then we need to include a distance since the magnetic field drops off the further from the source that you are measuring, so they put the distance in the denominator to give: B = I/2Pir.

Then they realised that different materials or different environments produce different strength magnetic fields, so they needed another term in there to represent that. This new term really should go in the denominator as well, but permeability is already an inverse value because a higher value represents less resistance. So it was put into the numerator to give us: B = uI/2Pir.

That's how you build an equation. But we are looking at it slightly differently. We are looking at the photons and really want equations that represent that and this one doesn't. It is related to it, but not a direct representation of it. I know that Miles has talked about the permeability of free space before, but I can't remember which paper it is in. I had a quick look over the titles but nothing jumped out at me. My guess at this stage is that the permeability represents the material of the wire, in this case, but it also might represent the ambient field that the magnetic field forms in.

You can express the magnetic field as a percentage of the current, but you must remember that it only represents 1 radian, or 57.2958°, of the area around the wire.

I can't work backwards because I need to know how a single magnetic field works before I can take on two fields meeting. We currently have two scenarios and each of them has the photons moving in different directions. They are either moving inline with the current or they are moving perpendicular to it. That creates two very different models.

Moving the compass needle is more about relative motion of the photons in each magnetic field. For attraction, the photons are spinning in opposite directions which means that when they collide they have no relative velocity between them and therefore no force between them. For repulsion, they are spinning in the same direction and therefore create a large force when they collide which pushes the entities apart.

Don't be fooled by magnetic field lines. They do not represent the motion of the photons that create that magnetic field, but represent the motion of ions in that field. This has probably been the biggest hurdle to figuring out magnetism because those field lines have been drummed into us as magnetism but they are not. They are the resultant motion caused by magnetism. Huge difference.

How can we produce such a field? To set the stage, our viewpoint is looking down the length of the wire. The current is moving away from our eye in a straight line. Let's call that the Z dimension and the current is moving in the negative direction. That is, +ve Z would be moving towards our eye and -ve Z is moving away from it. We need to pick a side and we will use the right hand side, which is +ve X. Anything moving up is the +ve Y dimension.

The charge photons need to be spinning in such a way that they create motion around the wire. That means that they are spinning such that their outside edge, furthest from the wire, is moving down. We get that from the right-hand-rule. This means that they are spinning around the Z axis. They have a top level Z spin.

If we look at the -ve Y direction from the wire, then the photons are spinning left. The -ve X and they are spinning up. +ve Y and they are spinning right. See how that creates a circular field? You can think of it as a roller but it is really made of lots and lots of tiny rollers. Sort of like how wheel bearings for your car work but without the angle on the bearings.



We can produce that motion with the photons moving inline with the current which means that the current photons are also outside of the wire, which Miles has stated in his work on electricity (see how a battery works paper). We can also produce that motion if the charge photons are emitted from the wire, as we have been discussing. However, that does feel a bit unnatural since the photons are moving in a direction that is different from their top level spin. I can't rule that out but it doesn't seem like they should move that way.

One piece of evidence against that emission model is that two magnetic fields meeting would still feel the linear velocity of the photons since they are moving straight at each other. If the photon are moving inline with the current then the linear velocity is irrelevant or at least reduced by a large margin. Our emission model also requires that the charge photons have their linear velocity altered by 90° but their spin is not altered. That doesn't feel quite right, but I can't say it can't happen either.

Does that help? I think I will start to model the basic scenario with the photons moving inline with the current. That is how Miles has explained it so I think I should start there. It also gets me back to a simpler model that is easier to implement.

Lift on a wing is a good topic to try but I haven't read into it enough at this point. I think it is more important to get the low level concepts working before stepping into larger things.

Nevyn wrote Perhaps what I should have said is that there are many different ways to deliver magnetism and there are many different ways that it manifests. The resultant forces are not all the same and so we need to categories them and show how they operate. We have been discussing the magnetic field around a current carrying wire. That is a line based system. The wire provides the line and everything happens around it. That differs from the magnetism of a charge particle, which is spherical or maybe you could call in planar because it is emitted about the equator in a plane (or close to it).

The wire creates a field that envelopes that wire. The charged particle does not. There is nowhere around that wire, sufficiently close to it, that you won't feel the magnetic field but the magnetic field of a charged particle is only about the equator of that particle. You won't feel any magnetic effects at the poles of that particle. That is the main difference that led me to this line of thought.

Airman. It’s a remarkable fact that magnets, wires and charged particles display coherent emissions. Other than the number and distribution of charged particles, there’s really no difference between the wire and charged particle. The wire is simply a collection of many charged particles, and all the fields overlap.

Nevyn wrote All charge photons emitted from a charged particle are moving in different directions. The wire is a line but the particle is a plane emitted radially.
Airman. I disagree. It just appears that way. You may need to model them differently because the macro structure is comprised of so many individual particles, but that’s not because wire emissions are planar and particle emissions are spherical, each individual emission is spherical, and only tends to equatorial emissions, as with greater numbers of emitting particles.

Nevyn wrote Then we can bring size into it. There isn't much difference between a charged particle and a planet or star, but there is a huge size difference and this changes the results of those fields. They operate in the same way but are not strictly equivalent because the size difference, between source entity and the charge photons, introduces a time lag and also inertia becomes more of an issue. I'm happy to just deal with the small entities for now.
Airman. Agreed, good to keep in mind.

Nevyn wrote As I described earlier, the atoms can turn because as the current increases their own charge emission increases and this pushes against neighboring atoms. The atoms move apart which, given enough current, gives them enough room to turn. If the current keeps increasing, then the atoms really push each other apart and the solid starts acting like a fluid and will eventually melt. Given enough initial current, you can even vaporize the wire, skipping, or very quickly transitioning through, the fluid stage and going straight to gas.
Airman. Atoms turning in a wire due to current increases is clearly over driving the conductor. I was describing turning electrons within the wire which is thousands of times easier. Under normal operation the wire should only heat less than a few degrees.

An interesting and pertinent subject here is Arcflash. Routine training requirement for electrical safety.  

https://www.osha.gov/dte/grant_materials/fy10/sh-20999-10/electrical_safety_manual.pdf
Electrical Safety Training for the Manufacturing Industry

In an arcflash, air (which is normally an insulator with high resistance to the flow of electricity) breaks down and loses its resistance, becoming conductive. The very low resistance causes the current to be very high, causing the dangers of an arc flash.

Or Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_flash

An arc flash (also called a flashover), which is distinctly different from the arc blast, is part of an arc fault, a type of electrical explosion or discharge that results from a low-impedance connection through air to ground or another voltage phase in an electrical system.

I was taught that a portion of the conductor vaporized into a metal plasma, as later evidenced by the missing conductor.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Lloyd wrote. Magnetic Photon Detection
_L: It's the electrons that magnetic field detectors measure; isn't it? The photons align and cause the electrons to align, causing the magnetic field. But instruments apparently don't detect the photons. Right?
_A: I believe that's what Miles has indicated. If atoms could just realign in place, why would a compass needle turn? The force of all the individual atoms added together cause a single large atomic structure (the needle) to point directly to the wire.
_L: I didn't think about compass needles, but it seems like they do sort of detect photons directly instead of electrons or ions.
Airman. The compass needle may ‘detect’ photons, but we only see the compass needle turn. In hundreds of years studying compasses, no one saw the needle detecting photons. As I understand it our equipment must see some sort of relative motion, usually between electrons and ions.
...
_A: When the current is switched on, the needle points perpendicularly away from the conductor, shown on top. Again, this agrees with our previous discussion, in the energized state, photons are being emitted perpendicularly away from the conductor.
_L: I think there has to be a field of electrons around current-carrying wires and it seems like photons would need to move mainly parallel along each wire in order to get those electrons to spin magnetically. Am I wrong? If someone can make a simple diagram of that, maybe I could understand the perpendicular compass needle.
Airman. I believe electrons tend to travel and align spin axii parallel to the current flow, throughout the cross sectional area of the conductor. This will result in the wire’s perpendicular magnetic field. I thought we agreed on diagram c below. Do you want to see diagram c in motion? Or please indicate how I can change the diagram to highlight your idea?



I have no problem accepting the possibility that electrons at the surface of the conductor begin to form a cloud about the conductor, as long as they have access to direct photon current. I don’t believe the photon current extends much beyond the conductor, although the magnetic field extends indefinitely.  

_A: [earlier] I can also apply the mechanism to the magnetic field around the conductor. First, under normal operation the conductor’s molecular crystal arrangements are fixed in place. Yesterday I asked, if atoms could realign, why would the compass needle turn? Obviously the compass’ individual atoms do not realign, instead, they reorient as a single charged structure, the compass needle itself. So, I assume the atom alignments are fixed.
_L: That seems to be a logical conclusion. And it seems the same must apply to wires as well, unless there's a threshhold.
Airman. Agreed.
…
_L: I assume most of the free electrons are outside the wire. Those inside have supposedly been measured to move only mm's per second. Or maybe the measured speed included those outside too. I don't know.
Airman. The electrons travel slowly through the conductors, true. Still, we are talking about a large number of electrons passing the conductor’s cross section each second. If we find electron emissions create a magnetic field, what’s the difference how fast they travel along the conductor? A charge flow is a charge flow. The electron average velocity will be determined by the photon current charge flow.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. We keep the distance, r, constant so we can take that out. Same with the permeability of free space, it is a constant so we remove it from the ratio. That leaves us with B = I/2Pi.

Isn't that interesting? The magnetic field is the current divided by 360°!
…
However, if we go back to Miles paper on magnetism, he states that it is the spin of the current photons that cause the magnetic field, directly, and that would be inline with this equation because we aren't losing any charge photons to create the magnetic field but our discussion has them being emitted perpendicular to the current, and that means they are lost.

Airman. I think you’ve made a great observation. I guess I assumed emissions were lost energy, but that is clearly not true. There are fields about all matter, that doesn’t mean there’s any loss involved. Emissions are the product of the conductor’s charge recycling process. It’s rare to find magnetic fields, both the electric and magnetic fields derive from the same photon source, so they are equal in some way. The magnetic field is present as long as there is a current flow.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Backwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gs1hEnbrNM
Laughing out loud Lloyd, I was tapping right along.
.

Simple
I guess nothing is simple. I was thinking lift on a wing seemed simple and I thought the same re a compass needle by an electric current. Would a non-magnetized iron needle be simpler? Or hasn't anyone checked to see how they're affected by current-carrying wires?

Permeability
You can find about any word or phrase on Miles' site by doing a web search, like this for permeability: site:milesmathis.com permeability
- If you want to find an exact phrase, put the exact words in quotes.
- Here are the results for the above:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amilesmathis.com+permeability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
- Looks like the Electric Charge paper and the Anomalous Magnetic Moment paper probably have what you're looking for.

Backwards
I was looking for entertainment on Youtube years ago and decided to see what a search on "backwards" would bring up, after having had some pretty good results with other words, like "amazing", "amateur" etc.

If the magnetic field was based on emission, then I would expect to see the magnetic field drop as the current moves along the wire. It would have to because the current density is reduced every time those photons interact with the conductor or electrons or whatever is emitting them. Some of it keeps going but some of it is chucked out, so the density must drop.

Now, any resistance causes a voltage drop, and all wires have resistance, so there will be some reduction to the magnetic field along the wire, but not enough to account for an emission model, I think.

One thing in electrical circuit theory that I am struggling to fit into this model, is that the current through-out a circuit does not drop, but the voltage does. Current in equals current out but voltage starts high and drops to ground or whatever your reference voltage is. I feel like current and voltage are part of the same thing and haven't been separated out enough to link them to this level of theory.

That is also pertinent to our discussion of magnetism, because if the current doesn't drop, then where does that magnetic field come from? That was why I started to think that the current interacts with the ambient field to create the magnetic field but I think we have shot that idea down already.

My tentative theory is that current is the speed of photons where-as voltage is the density. But then again, Miles has stated that AC is a reversal of spin, not direction, so maybe voltage is related to the difference between the currents spin and the ambient fields spin. I'm not sure, but it does need looking in to.

Thanks Lloyd, I'll look into those shortly and see what they have to say.

E = IR.
Voltage is emf, which is force or pressure, which requires the masses of the photons times the velocity, I reckon. Resistance is like friction, as I understand it, which would be a counter-force to the emf force, which I think comes from the atomic structure of the wire/conductor, like the friction in a water pipe against water flow. Current should be volume per second, or maybe mass per second.

Magnetic Field Components
_L: I think there has to be a field of electrons around current-carrying wires and it seems like photons would need to move mainly parallel along each wire in order to get those electrons to spin magnetically. Am I wrong? If someone can make a simple diagram of that, maybe I could understand the perpendicular compass needle.
_A: I believe electrons tend to travel and align spin axii [axes] parallel to the current flow, throughout the cross sectional area of the conductor. This will result in the wire’s perpendicular magnetic field. I thought we agreed on diagram c below. Do you want to see diagram c in motion? Or please indicate how I can change the diagram to highlight your idea?
_L: Diagram C is fine, since you have the poles 90 degrees off from where I had them. In my original diagram I meant for the = signs to indicate the poles, not the equator. And I showed more levels of electrons above the wire/conductor.
- If the charge stream moves largely as through-charge through the electrons, with a small amount of equatorial emission, the photons in the parallel charge stream will be spinning largely clockwise or CCW with respect to the translational motion. Right? So those CW or CCW rotating photons will cause other free electrons to spin the opposite way, but the free electrons' spin axes will still be parallel to the wire/conductor.
- I think the electrons have to be what provide the magnetic force that solid objects are affected by, because they move much more slowly than photons. Photons are gone in a flash.
- Anyway, what do you guys think the magnetic field consists of? Electrons? Or photons? Or both?
- Photons can only have their outer spins going CW or CCW. Is that true? I think Miles said the A-spin has to be CW or CCW, because any other direction would have it going faster than c. So wouldn't that always be true for each outer spin-level, which is what comes in contact with the ambient field?

I only had to read the abstract for the Electrical Charge paper to find out that permittivity is gravity of the proton, but that is not permeability. Miles doesn't really say what permeability is in that paper, but that is a must read. Awesome paper with many insights about various things we have been discussing around this site.

It has given me an idea about a new line of apps. If I can create many little animations or simulations to explain each step of the paper, then I can just insert them into the paper. I put the contents of the paper into a HTML page that is then sprinkled with 3D apps when it is useful to see what is happening. I have already developed the framework for that some time ago, so I just need to create the individual scenes and put it all together. That Electrical Charge paper felt like a good start. It will also fit well with the atomic modeling papers. Imagine reading through the paper and you scroll down to see Atomic Viewer with the element being described or two elements bonding.

I wanted to throw this out there, it's clearer than the previous diagram, but it may contain errors, please help.

We are looking slightly down along the wire conductor lying in a horizontal direction. The red and blue emission planes - the summation of which represent the wire's magnetic field - are shown.



First off, I'm not sure of my direction/anti-direction, and need confirmation.

The electron 'cloud' around the conductor are high energy electrons that have escaped the conductor. These electrons are a loss, they will probably not re-enter the direct photon current. They can only move a few inches within the atmosphere before they lose their energy, joining the free electrons in the air. They tend to disperse over time. Increasing the current increases the density of free electrons just outside the boundary cloud.

The electron/positron boundary cloud is a high energy plasma. At small currents, the cloud may too diffuse to refer to it as a cloud, perhaps a zone instead. If a second conductor, a ground or alternate phase, is brought within the boundary cloud, high energy electrons could create ionization channels in the second conductor - a spark. Depending on the boundary cloud density, additional ionization could occur, sometimes exponentially. Same as the lightning spark that touches the ground, a catastrophic fault current can develop. The arcflash.

Safety first, don't even think about that battery welding your wrench to your ring, hot, hot, hot.
.

.
L.1.a. If the charge stream moves largely as through-charge through the electrons, with a small amount of equatorial emission, the photons in the parallel charge stream will be spinning largely clockwise or CCW with respect to the translational motion. Right?
A.1.a. I think so, if your definition of translational motion refers to the main photon charge current direction. As in my previous diagram.

L.1.b. So those CW or CCW rotating photons will cause other free electrons to spin the opposite way, but the free electrons' spin axes will still be parallel to the wire/conductor.
A.1.b. I disagree. I need to be consistent, and I may end up confusing my directions here. Photons drive electrons. The electrons align themselves to the photon source, maximizing intake and somehow gaining energy. Weren’t they already spinning c? Increased photons mean higher energy, more photons are required to recycle through the high energy electrons.

The atoms with the conductor are operating well within an increased energy capacity. Since their de-energized emissions were not magnetic, I don’t expect the high energy atoms will contribute the energized conductor’s magnetic field.

I thought most charge was taken in at the poles and emitted at the equator, with little through charge.  There is no gear mechanism that can convert cause other free electrons to spin the opposite way. More photons flow into the aligned electrons.

L.2. I think the electrons have to be what provide the magnetic force that solid objects are affected by, because they move much more slowly than photons. Photons are gone in a flash.
A.2. You initially felt electrons traveled too slowly in a wire; if electrons were any faster, magnetic fields would react faster and be much more dangerous.  

L.3.  Anyway, what do you guys think the magnetic field consists of? Electrons? Or photons? Or both?
A.3. I think the magnetic field is due entirely to coherent photons. You would have to put an electron or an ion in the field to observe their motions in order to see the field, neither the electron nor the ion caught in the magnetic field can be said to add to or cause the field.

L.4. Photons can only have their outer spins going CW or CCW. Is that true? I think Miles said the A-spin has to be CW or CCW, because any other direction would have it going faster than c. So wouldn't that always be true for each outer spin-level, which is what comes in contact with the ambient field?
A.4. I‘ll defer to Nevyn on this one.

////////////////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Now, any resistance causes a voltage drop, and all wires have resistance, so there will be some reduction to the magnetic field along the wire, but not enough to account for an emission model, I think.

One thing in electrical circuit theory that I am struggling to fit into this model, is that the current through-out a circuit does not drop, but the voltage does. Current in equals current out but voltage starts high and drops to ground or whatever your reference voltage is. I feel like current and voltage are part of the same thing and haven't been separated out enough to link them to this level of theory.

The Electron Radius as a Function of c
At any rate, if the larger particles are getting their energy from the smaller ones, then the smaller ones must be losing energy. Which means the photons coming out of the engine must be changed in some way. They must have lost some energy. We may propose that the engine strips the outermost spins of the photon, using it to maintain its own spin. But this means charge emitted is less energetic than charge taken in. Particles aren't emitting a charge field, they are taking the ambient charge field and weakening it in the near vicinity. Therefore, what we call charge is actually a charge LOSS. The charge wind is WEAKER (in some way) near particles than everywhere else. This would create the appearance of an attraction

Airman. Higher energy means more photon intake, higher focused emissions, and a reduction of the ambient energy. This almost makes sense.

I haven't been able to reach Miles' site today, or I would have included the Homepage numbered entry for his paper.
.

LloydK wrote:Photons can only have their outer spins going CW or CCW. Is that true? I think Miles said the A-spin has to be CW or CCW, because any other direction would have it going faster than c. So wouldn't that always be true for each outer spin-level, which is what comes in contact with the ambient field?

Yes, Miles has stated that the photon spins CW or CCW, but the first question is: relative to what? It is relative to the spin axis which is also the direction of travel. This is another problem for the emission model as we have them spinning about an axis that is not the direction of travel. Miles has them spinning such that they are CW or CCW to an observer that the photon is moving straight towards. The magnetic field is a circular field around the wire and this requires photons that are spinning about an axis that is parallel with the wire. If the photons are emitted, then that emission would be moving perpendicular to the wire and therefore their spins can not be CW or CCW and still create the magnetic field.

I spent some time last night building a prototype for my Interactive Papers apps. I copied the content from Miles Electrical Charge paper into a new HTML structure that can include apps wherever I want them. I found two parts that could use an app to demonstrate the concepts being discussed and have built the first app. Please ignore the second app as that is just a hang-over from the code I copied it from and will be changed shortly.

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/charge.html

The app I have currently built has merged stacked spins with the charge emission shader I have in AV. I made a few little tweeks to make the shader fit the spinning particle but they are mostly the same shader.

The second app will be a central proton with another proton and an electron in the charge field of the central proton to show how the emission of that proton strikes the second proton more than the electron.

Lloyd, this might be a better way to do the lift on a wing paper. I'm sure there will be lots of little animations that can help that paper.

Antimatter
Airman, I forgot what Miles said about antimatter. It seems like he said there could be antimatter galaxies. Didn't he? But didn't he say it doesn't exist here much?

Antiphotons
I know regarding antiphotons he said there are probably 1/3 of them at this distance from the Sun versus 2/3 photons, I think.

I think the photons and antiphotons would be traveling along the wire in the same direction and the effect of 1/2 of the photons are canceled out by the antiphotons.

Nevyn, your plan to have apps mixed into your paper/s sounds excellent (as long as no downloads are needed).

LloydK wrote:Antimatter
Airman, I forgot what Miles said about antimatter. It seems like he said there could be antimatter galaxies. Didn't he? But didn't he say it doesn't exist here much?

Antiphotons
I know regarding antiphotons he said there are probably 1/3 of them at this distance from the Sun versus 2/3 photons, I think.

I think the photons and antiphotons would be traveling along the wire in the same direction and the effect of 1/2 of the photons are canceled out by the antiphotons.

Nevyn, your plan to have apps mixed into your paper/s sounds excellent (as long as no downloads are needed).

Looks like a lot of the "Anti-photon" discussion from Mathis appears to be in terms of planets.  However he did just state formally what we all know about it:

115. Dielectric Polarization

You will ask why the nucleus emits at the equator. Why not channel from pole to pole? Angular momentum. As I said, the nucleus is spinning. Not all photons will channel through: some will hit the outside of the nucleus and cause it to spin. All that is necessary for that is an ambient charge field that is not completely balanced in the four directions (or completely symmetrical concerning spin). Once the nucleus is spinning as a whole, it will have more angular momentum at the equator. This is also what explains charge channeling by the Earth and all celestial bodies. The sphere will naturally create greater angular momentum at its equator, and this drives the field potentials in and around the sphere. Well, the nucleus is not a sphere, but it is an octahedron, which works the same way regarding angular momentum at the equator.
In my paper on Period 4, I showed how this field naturally explains through charge in Iron, which explains how photons are spun up as they pass through the pole, creating magnetism. It also explains why we have two fields, electrical and magnetic, and why they are orthogonal. Well, it obviously explains the dielectric in the same way. Specifically, the applied E-field does not make the insulator into a conductor, and that is because the E-field is applied in such a way that the extra charge introduced is stored in the material rather than transmitted through it in a line. We are told this is because the substance becomes polarized, but although that is true in a way, it is vague. We are told that “If a dielectric is composed of weakly bonded molecules, those molecules not only become polarized, but also re-orient so that their symmetry axis aligns to the field.” Again, true, but criminally vague. For the question remains, “Why and how?” And once we have the alignment, how does alignment prevent conduction?

I have added the second app to my interactive paper showing the effect of a protons emission on another proton and an electron. I also added some controls to alter the view points. These haven't aligned as nicely as I would like but they are functional.

I think this paper has worked quite well and, Miles getting his site back up not with standing, I will have a look at the stacked spin papers to see how I can slot some apps in there.

I haven't forgotten about magnetism, I just needed to get something going for this project before I forgot about it.

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/charge.html

.
Nevyn, I think html pages with embedded “examples” is a great idea. Miles' cooperation would be perfect. The idea sounds ambitious, you may need to hire help. As a quick review: 1) Please give a brief description of each sim or animation. 2) The charged particle path starts with a long line segment that's a distraction.  3) It’s nice to see the two; electron emissions are rather puny compared to protons, let alone Cu. I didn’t find the co-located electron till I zoomed into the proton. 4) Good quality addition.

Cr6, thanks for the 115. Dielectric Polarization posting, you scored a direct collision with my head. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table has several Cu conducting passages. This quote addresses good conduction, primarily one-way charge flows.

I have already explained the conduction of Copper above, but now you see for yourself the differential from top to bottom. If you want magnetism, you look for elements with equal numbers of protons top and bottom. If you want electrical conduction, you look for a differential. I already showed this in a previous paper concerning Silver. This differential is what gives your photon field a summed direction. You don't want charge and anticharge cancelling one another in terms of linear motion, so you want charge moving more strongly than anticharge. That is what we see diagrammed here with Copper.

Good magnetism requires two-way current flow. Lloyd, please note the 2-way, opposing motion and "opposing" CW and CCW spins which actually reinforce.
 

What do I mean by that? It sounds esoteric, but it is actually simple. If you have antiphotons going down in a line through the nuclear axis and photons going up in that same line, your conduction may be poor because your photon traffic is going both ways. Your linear streams are canceling one another. But your magnetism will be augmented because—as a matter of spin—a photon going up is the same thing as an antiphoton going down. Photons and antiphotons are only opposite if they are traveling side by side in the same direction. In that case, their spins cancel and the magnetic field goes to zero. But if they are traveling in opposite directions, their spins actually stack, since they are the same. That is what we see here with Iron.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Matthew Reilly update. https://archive.org/details/icestation00panb

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I still can't connect to any of Miles' pages. It's been over a day now.
.

I don't see that long line segment in Firefox or Chrome. Occasionally I do see a line that doesn't follow the path correctly and that is caused by the time based animations. Each individual app only renders when it is on screen, and this can cause a jump in time but when I try to make it happen, it doesn't. Weird one.

As I looked over a cached version of Miles science site, I noticed that there was a second charge paper, so I had a read and built a copy of it to include the same two apps I used in the first one. I also built an index page to provide links to the interactive papers. You can see both here: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/. I then updated the main index page, with links to AV, SpinSIm, etc, to include a link to the interactive papers but haven't updated the site yet. It was late and I forgot. I actually woke up this morning and thought I'd see what it looks like on my phone but it wasn't there. Instant panic, followed by relief when I realised that I just didn't update it. It can get confusing when I spend time on my dev site and start thinking that the real site is the same.

I spent a bit of time last night trying to add some color to that index page and the actual papers share that style but what I found is that I can't use a background color on the whole page because it paints over the apps. This is a result of how I had to implement these apps to fit on a single page but appear to be separate apps. Essentially, there is one big canvas that sits underneath the page and the apps just let it show through. So all apps are rendered into the same canvas but at different locations to reflect where they are on the page. I'll have another go because they are a bit bland at the moment. I like the structure, it just needs some color.

I have created a thread for the Interactive Papers project. All new ideas should be posted to that thread.

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t307-interactive-papers