Body
Hi Mick,
The theory of Wilbert B. Smith starts from nothing at all like pure emptiness without any space. Then he first builds up the space and fills in some density to construct the fields. The three fundamental fields are then Tempus (field of change) the electric field (divergence) and the magnetic field (curl). After that the fundamental particles (the electron and positron) are build which extends to quarks and other fractions of atoms.
Thus to say which is the most fundamental of E and B it is the electric field E according to Smith. T or the tempic field is even more fundamental as this is the density required for making the electric field (divergence of density) and the electric field is required for making the magnetic field (stirring the electric field). Actually the fields can't be separated from each other as I understand it as the fields are unified into each other as shown by Ivor Catt. This causes trouble for Faraday's law of induction. The scientific society won't touch the theory of Catt even though seen from an engineering point of view it gives solutions instead of paradoxes. But also new problems arise as shown by Forrest Bishop. True science will solve the problems instead of turning away from the problems.
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
Norm,
Hard to say it's the chicken and the egg again. B before the E and H... OK photons are the current answer according to the link, however what if the B fields were there first, then it would be like magnetic super strings of some kind. Now would these be particles or just pertubations of the background quiescent aether space flux? There are the monopole particle theories such as Ed Leedskalnin or Russells magnetic light. My theory would be a magnetic particle is the inverse of a photon and as such something not presently detectable directly.
On 12/31/2018 8:03 AM, Norman Wootan nwootan@... mailto:nwootan@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
When you set out to research a topic, You have to first define it. Boy, the jury is still out, so to speak for the experts still do not know the exact composition of magnetic fields or lines of force. Just just have to laugh. See
Ohttps://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414
Ok, guys, what is your idea as to composition of magnetic flux??
On 12/31/2018 5:45 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive-driven_ferromagnetic_generator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive-driven_ferromagnetic_generator Source doc. for "pressure-induced magnetic phase transition."
On 12/31/2018 5:43 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon This document is a pretty good review of the DEW technology so far. My prime interest is in the annihilation of magnetic flux which according to the Wired article produces a stream of particles that can be focused and channeled to a target. My question is, What are the particles that composed the magnetic flux before destruction and do they comply with the SUPER LIGHT theory. Folks, this is whole new ball game if we can create vast energy from directly destroying magnet flux. Kone, just blow up a few of your 1.5 Tesla one inch cube magnets and have a direct generation of "pressure-induced magnetic phase transition." electric output in KV @ KA. BTW, this is one for Ole to comment on. Lol
On 12/30/2018 1:51 PM, Norman Wootan wrote:
To add to the info on the Neo magnetic NNEMP weapon, take a look at this Army doc. https://www.wired.com/2009/03/army-turns-bomb/ https://www.wired.com/2009/03/army-turns-bomb/ In the old Flux compression Generators there was a need for HV capacitor bank and a long solenoid coil to provide the powerful magnetic flux field needed to be annihilated which yielded the EMP (Magneto-electric pulse). It reasoned that the new family of Neo magnets held the necessary flux strength which negated the heavy capacitors and copper solenoid coil. With a super fast explosive , Octanitrocubane could destroy the Neo's in the nanosecond range needed for the EMP shot (magnetic flux converted into particle flux which is the constituents of the magnetic field)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octanitrocubane https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octanitrocubane
On 12/30/2018 11:42 AM, Norman Wootan nwootan@... mailto:nwootan@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
Remember that my main line of research is the Magnetic flux annihilation-Reconnect EMP phenomenon. Here is a first step into learning more about the Magnetoelectric effect. Just build sensors. See attachment. Now that you have a sensor lets look at the Magnetoelectric (EMP output when you destroy a very powerful neo magnet via rapid explosives. Remember that energy cannot be destroyed but can convert into another form of energy we call the Magnetoelectric EMP. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive-driven_ferromagnetic_generator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive-driven_ferromagnetic_generator This is a direct conversion of powerful magnetic flux field directly into very high power electrical output.
On 12/30/2018 11:29 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
Tesla's Pyro generator to which I referred which took advantage of iron phase shift.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-428057-pyromagneto-electric-generator https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-428057-pyromagneto-electric-generator
Somewhere here we have to jump back and address IONS both positive and negative. See my 1996 paper for KeelyNet titled WHAT is Heat which dealt with ionization and its potential. The loss or gain of electrons in the atomic lattice causes the precise predictability of the various phase change points.
This is the Bad Boy that I wanted to build using nitrogen gas and an alpha emitter electrodes.
What is Heat #2
For about 10 years I have been studying the effects of
heating and cooling associated with the phase change of
liquids with the hope of building a simple generator of
electrical power around the phenomenon. The reason for this
interest is based on the theory that energy can be extracted
from the ambient background via thermal differentials. My
line of thinking really took off back when I experimented
with the all too familiar Peltier junction devices found in
electronic cooling devices. Would you believe that most
people do not understand how these devices move thermal
energy through a current flow across a semiconductor
junction. Historically we find that German physicist,
Thomas Seebeck back in 1820 observed that when heat was
applied to a junction of copper and steel wire that
electrical energy resulted. Later in 1834 Jean Peltier
discovered that when a direct current was applied to two
dissimilar metals the junction got hot or cold. It was not
until 1838 that Emil Lenz clearly showed the importance of
both Seebeck and Peltier s discoveries by placing a drop of
water on the junction of dissimilar metals which froze then
melted when the polarity of the direct current was
reversed. These discoveries remained dormant for over 100
years because of the unavailability of semiconductor
materials which could provide the wide temperature
differentials. In the 1930 s semiconductor materials became
available which revived the electric cooling principles. In
the 1960 s many companies began building spot cooling
devices and refrigerators based on these effects using a
junction material of bismuth-telluride. Today more advanced
materials are used with the basic parameters of being a pore
thermal conductor but being an excellent electrical
conductor. The dissimilar materials must provide a high
coefficient of voltage temperature relationship. The first
Peltier devices that I experimented with back about 10 years
ago were built by Marlow Industries here in Dallas. With a
small temperature differential across the device a weak
current with an attendant voltage was developed. Increasing
the differential provided a proportional increase in current
and voltage. About 6 years ago I posted a chart of the
wattage generated from two different size Peltier chips on
the KeelyNet BBS. My curiosity was based on the puzzle of
how electron flow could move thermal energy across the
junctions and how electrical energy was produced by moving
thermal energy across the junction. This is a directly
reversible situation based on polarity.
Now let us look at a very familiar parallel process used in
refrigeration, cooling and heating devices employing phase
change material such as water and refrigerants. We have
always been led to believe that evaporating water provided
cooling effects which is a mechanical process. By the same
mechanical process we are provided heating effects by the
condensation of a gas back to a liquid phase change. Would
you believe that any material that undergoes a phase change
provides an attendant electrical effect. Back in 1840
Armstrong invented an electrostatic generator based on
escaping steam through insulated nozzles which provided one
of the most powerful devices of this type ever built.
Popular belief was that this was a frictional process with
the electrical output resulting from the steam friction
passing through the nozzles. After reading an old (1920 s)
Thermodynamics in Chemistry text book I realized that the
phase change of materials was an electrical phenomenon and
not purely mechanical. The atoms of the material lose or
gain electrons in the process which accounts for the
discrepancy in the energy equation when a material
transitions between phases. More energy is present after
the phase change back to the lower form or atomic state. The
text book stated that this phenomenon could not be
explained. When Jerry and I attended a Conference hosted by
Hal Puthoff down in Austin back about 6 years ago a
physicist from Austria presented a paper on the phase change
of water and the attendant electrical phenomenon which is
totally not understood by modern science. Now my suspicions
were confirmed that phase changes of materials are an
electrostatic phenomenon, which leads us to the fundamental
question of, What is heat? We were told in the school
that heat is the presence of energy and cool is the absence
of energy. What is the form of this energy? Let us look at
a very simple example of heating which may explain this
process. When sunlight strikes an absorbing surface it is
heated because electrons in the material are converted to
photons which are emitted in the infrared band of light
leaving the material in a net positive state or hot. The
more electrons a material looses the hotter it becomes. Now
the inverse situation is explored by evaporating some water
from the surface of a material which leaves the surface in a
net negative state or cold. Heat or cold is based on the
ion relationship in the material. When we apply a flame
(ionizing) to a material we cause the emission of photons
which is basically stripping away electrons from the atomic
structure causing a gross net positive situation to occur.
Now we are getting a picture as to how an electric current
across the Peltier junction can transport thermal energy
(ions). Since the energy is in the form of presence or
absence of electrons then it is a simple explanation as to
how the process works. All phase change processes work the
same way basically via ion transport and are not mechanical
processes which we were taught. Everything in chemistry is
an electrical or electrostatic process at the atomic level
based on the ionized state of the atoms involved.
At a Vangard Science Round table discussion several years ago
we talked about the ion wind method of fire fighting in
which ionized air will extinguish a flame because of the
cooling effects. Now we see Patents issued based on
negative ion spraying of a surface causing it to rapidly
cool because it becomes net negative charged. This is a
very efficient method of air-conditioning because an ion
generator operates at very high voltages with very little
current involved. It is possible to develop this ion
transport (thermal energy) to provide direct electrical
output from very subtle temperature differentials. Remember
that this is a direct reversible process where a thermal
differential will cause a development of current and voltage
as in the Peltier device. I hope that this dialog will
provide some food for thought out there on the KeelyNet.
Please provide some feedback on this very interesting line
of experimentation. Norm