An alternative explanation for Magical Transformer

In Lawrence’s Magical Transformer design, an electromagnetic coil is lead to vibrate in a Magnetic field to produce excess more electrical energy output than input. He has a set of lead-in, lead-out theory on how does the process yell more output than input. Here is my alternative explanation for that phenomena:

Consider the case which an electromagnetic coil is connected to A.C. supply without presence of any Permanent Magnet. What happen is simply the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic coil oscillation according to the oscillation of the input electrical current. However, since electromagnetic coil has self-inductance which resist any variation of magnetic field therefore the inputting electrical current, therefore it consistently drain electrical energy from the A.C. supply just to maintain an oscillating magnetic field in the electromagnetic coil. Technically Speaking, it is when the supply is alternating the electrical current, a resisting EMF is felt by the supply from the electromagnetic coil.

On the other end, when we have place a permanent magnet in the one end of the electromagnetic coil, and the electromagnetic coil is attached in such a way that it is allowed to move away or toward the permanent magnet. The electrical current in the electromagnetic coil will now experience two source of influence: One is the resisting EMF by the coil to resist any change in electrical current, Second is the resisting EMF brought by the movement of the coil itself.

Consider the case which one end of the coil is polarize to N, which cause it move away from the N pole of the Magnet. Now the first part of resisting EMF is the opposite direction of the changed in electrical current, therefore it is in the direction of S. For the second part, since the coil is moving away from the magnet, therefore the coil would produce an EMF resisting this change. Thus, the effect is an additional resisting EMF in the direction of S is produced. Although they added together in this time, don’t forgot that the first has a much faster responding time than the later one. Is that possible when an electromagnetic coil of certain mass is oscillating at certain ‘resonance’ frequency, the effect of second resisting EMF is always in the opposition direction the first EMF, thus canceling any effect of self-inductance of the electromagnetic coil? Essentially, what Lawrence has achieved in his Magical Transformer is an electromagnetic coil with zero inductance, thus no electrical energy is wasted in fighting the self-inductance of the electromagnetic coil. What is originally lost now appear as electrical gained from the process.

Another hypothesis is what Lawrence has achieved is by using this physical setup so a particular oscillation pattern of the magnetic field is easily produced, and imposed on the electromagnetic coil. And in that particular pattern of oscillation of electromagnetic field, extra electromagnetic energy is resonant into the system?

Which is a better explanation?

More discussion on Bernoulli’s equation

In according to one of my article, Bernoulli’s equation has a fundamental problem which is it ignore the effect of of the wall of the container on the fluid molecules. In a sense, since they bounce back from the wall then this system can not be seen as an isolated system which no external energy is enter into it. As the molecules are bounced back from the wall, the momentum of it has been changed, and external momentum has imparted into it to change its direction of movement. Moreover, we have consider that to be an ideal elastic collision; but in reality both the speed and direction of the molecules would change, therefore external energy must entered into this system which is unaccounted by Bernoulli’s equation.
Another problem in the Bernoulli’s equation has to do with the idea of kinetic energy in Physics, it is ½mv². Since the velocity is squared, that follows which it doesn’t distinguish Mathematically between the signs of velocity, therefore it make no difference which direction the fluid molecule travel as long as it remain in the same speed. It then translated to that the wall of container doesn’t do ANY work to the molecule when changing its direction of movement! Amazing isn’t it?

Consider a molecule with mass m, traveling with speed v in positive direction, the momentum imparted in change direction to negative direction of the same speed =2mv

Because the wall first have to half the molecule then turn it backward, therefore
Kinetic energy gained= ½mv²+½mv²= mv²
Notice that the rate of change of kinetic energy is momentum, as we expected.

If there are in average N molecule bounced back from the wall, the work done by the wall is Nmv². If we know about N, m and v then we can actually calculated the total work done by the wall. While m is small but N could very large, plus in higher temperature v can be as large as 300m/s. Thus this ignored wall energy could be very great. Obviously there are something wrong with the presumption of Bernoulli’s equation.

There are some even more interesting cases, since action and reaction is equal and opposite then theoritically the container itself would move in the opposite direction of the bounced molecules. However if we take into consideration of the topological fact that a container must have walls in more than one direction to be a container. So there will be a wall in the left and a wall in the right. Assume that in average, the number of molecules bounced from two sides are almost equal. Then the reaction from both sides cancel each other out(thus no net work done is by the wall of container.) Thus for each pair of molecules is bounced, the wall is giveaway 2mv² kinetic energy for free! Therefore if in average N pairs of molecules hit the wall per minute, then the ‘wall energy’ is about 2Nmv².

Could Bernoulli’s equation be modified by taken into consideration of this situation?
(Update 06/20/2008:
Notice that in according to Law of Conservation of Energy, although the walls itself has given kinetic energy to the molecules that move in opposite direction. However, when two molecules moving in opposite direction collide, kinetic energy is NOT dissipated.
Another notes is that we assume the collision between the fluid molecules and the walls of container is COMPLETELY elastic, therefore the incoming velocities and outgoing velocities of the same molecule is the exact negative of each other. However, if this is not the cases in reality, then we must taken into account the change of speed of the fluid molecules before and after the collision with the walls of container.)
)

An hypothesis on Catalyst of Catalyst

It follow from the discussion on Between Catalyst and Placebo Effect and The Placebo effect and the question of mind and matter that analogous to recursive Repression in Freudian theory to hide any trace of repression, it is necessary for the brain to evolve Catalyst for neurological process so Placebo Effect is possible. Extending this analogy, the body isn’t just what the brain deceive, in order for the deception to be complete, the brain also need to deceive other parts of the brain. Thus, following the same logic, Catalyst of Catalyst of neurological process is necessary to have such an effect. By looking at the level of catalyst, we could tell how complete is the deception(and how good is Placebo Effect approximate its target). Similarly, we could infer from this line of logic that the existence of Catalyst implied some kind of cheating in the nature (in terms of energy). Theoretically, if it is chemically possible to accelerate a chemical reaction without itself being altered; then it should be possible that there exists another substance that could accelerate the ‘chemical reaction’ of Catalyst on the original reactants. If we could discover Catalyst of Catalyst, then we could understand how complete is that cheating in nature.

Parametric Power Conversion as a general Principle for electrical generation

In my notes on Overunity Research, Lawrence has ask the question on how does the Magnet able to increase the kinetic energy of itself by first magnetize the nearby metal, then attracted toward it. Where does the kinetic energy coming from? Moreover, in the end of the process, the strength of new magnetic field of metal and magnet is greater than original, where does the extra magnetic energy coming from?

The classic electromagnetic would answer this question by considering the energy gained throughout the whole process. Since it require energy to separate the metal and magnet, therefore energy is conserved in the sense which no net energy is gained in the process. It has, however, created the need to explain how is it possible to borrow kinetic energy in the process of attraction from the later process of separation. Does nature allow we borrow energy from the future? The same question in the case of attraction between charged object and metal, the metal is also borrowing energy from the future separation. Moreover, it is not necessary that the metal is separated from the attracted object in the future. A magnet could hinged on ceiling for years without falling down, what supply the gravitational potential energy in first place?

Another set of question which often ignored by Physicist is in the case of repulsion, what supplied the kinetic energy for the repulsed object to be separate? Clearly, the logic that eliminate the need to ask the source of energy no longer applied here. Physics has to answer the question of where this kinetic energy coming from, or through what mechanism that kinetic energy is produced.

My knowledge and understanding is probably inadequate for the process of answering this mystery, I could only lied down a tentative hypothesis of my own: My speculation is that through some special alignment of Magnetic/electrical mini-poles, it is possible that the totality of attraction/repulsion has created an effect of rotation on them. Thus the kinetic energy is coming from the rotational energy of individual mini-poles. Since it is the natural states that anything rotate, therefore the rotation of them thus provided an inexhaustible supply of kinetic energy.

One of the beautiful example of utilization of this kinetic energy for the generation of electricity is known as Parametric Power Conversion, which an iron core is attracted into an electromagnetic coil. The whole setup would then experience the unusual phenomena of negative inductive. I attempt here to formula a general principle for this classes of electrical generation, or energy extraction via attraction and repulsion of Electrical/Magnetic poles. Namely, Any electrical/Magnetic pole would first elicit energy from the electrically/magnetically neutral object in the area where electrical/magnetic flux is penetrable, possibly via the aforementioned mechanism. Then we can conveniently dream up any kind of mechanism to extract the kinetic energy gained.

For instant, we can imagine a simple Magnetic energy conversion device which attraction between coils and metal is converted into electrical energy. For instance, we could have two separate system, one made of metal and coils, another made of coils and magnet. The purpose of the coil in the later system is to attract the metal in the former system when it is magnetized. At the time of their attraction, the coil in the former system and the magnet in the later system is made to approach each other by design. If we connect any loading to the coil in the former system, that load would operate as kinetic energy from the attraction is converted into electrical energy. To end this iteration, we could end the attraction between the magnetized coil from the later system and the metal in the former system by stopped supplying the coil in the former system with electricity. After the coil in the later system is demagnetized, it is quite easy to manually separate the two system. We could then repeat the whole process to generate electricity from the attraction between coil and metal. The great theoretical question that classic electromagnetic would face is, does the total of energy conserved throughout the whole process? The answer is definitely not. Could we use the electrical energy generated in the process to maintain the operation of whole system? The answer is definitely yes.

If we look at the whole process in terms of energy loss and gained, some part of electrical energy is lost as electrical resistance in the magnetization of the coil. And the inductance of the coil no doubt borrowed some electrical energy in the building up of magnetic field in the coil in the later system. Then kinetic energy is gained as the metal is attracted toward the magnetized coil, which is then converted into electrical energy through Lenz’s Law in the coil of the former system. That is where ‘extra’ energy enter into the equation. As long as this extra energy is greater than the lost in coils as electrical resistance, the system could produce more electrical energy output than its input. We thus have a simple overunity generator.

We could similarly construct other OU generator by using any attraction mechanism between electrical/magnetic poles and electrical/magnetic neutral, then use any kinetic-electrical energy conversion mechanism we could imagine. The key is that the attraction mechanism would be reversible, i.e. the coil could be separated from the metal, so we could repeat the whole process. The inexhaustible source of energy is there in the nature for thousands of years. Physics couldn’t understand it adequately doesn’t mean that we couldn’t use it at all. In the end of the day, we never took Psychology class before we become human!

My thought on the problem of Infinite Inductance

In my last article discussing inductance in coils, I have mentioned that classic electromagnetism face the theoretical problem of infinite inductance. Namely, to magnetize the electromagnetic coil, the supply of electrical current has to provide infinite energy to overcome the infinite inductance in theory. What I have ignore at that time is the infinite inductance issue also appear in the demagnetization of coil. In a sense, the electrical supply has to provide infinite energy to magnetize the coil, only to be returned at the stage of demagnetization of coil. How is it possible to borrow infinite energy from the electrical supply at the beginning then to be returned at the demagnetization stage? And through what mechanism make that possible?

Now, I attempt to provide a solution to this issue of infinite inductance. To resolve this problem, we need to assume that both the magnetization and demagnetization for the coil is a gradual process rather than an instantaneous process. At the stage of initialize magnetization, it is assumed that there is random electrical current flowing in the coil or at least Voltage exist in the same direction of the intended direction of electrical current. Thus the process is far from a non-magnetize coil being magnetize, it is the external electrical current has gradually excited the pre-existing electrical potential of the coil in the same direction, until which an electrical current is formed in the coil in the intended direction of the electrical current. Thus we expected the electrical voltage in the coil is oscillate between two directions in the coil, a definite amount of electrical energy is taken from the supply then immediately returned to the supply in a fashion similar to reversed damped S.H.M. In a sense, the electrical supply is not flooding the coil with electrical energy, rather it is gradually resonance-in the electrical energy in the form of electrical current. It take time for the supply to reach the same oscillation frequency as the coil.
Similarly, when the coil begin to demagnetize, it is not immediately demagnetize, rather the pre-existing electrical potentiality in the opposition direction are gradually built up. Then the coil begin to resonance-out electrical energy to the supply in a damped S.H.M-like fashion. It take time for the coil and the supply to reach the same oscillation frequency so electrical energy to be returned.

Although this model could adequately resolve the theoretical difficulties in classic electromagnetism, it also bring in some ghosts in the process. One the biggest problem is that could we treat an electrically neutral coil is identical to a coil with equal and opposite electrical currents? Thus, in a sense, the electrical supply only accentuate the existing tendencies(potentailities) in the coil. What if we extend this idea to all electrical circuit which a 4A electrical current flowing in one direction is equivalent to a 6A electrical current flowing in one direction and 2A electrical current flowing in the opposite direction, or it equal to any combination of electrical currents in the opposite direction differ by 4A? What make the difference between them? Could we also take a probabilistic view of electrical current which electrical supply only increase the probability of electrical current in the intended direction? What of the quantization of electrical current take place in each metallic atom? What does it have to do with Quantum mechanic?

Pleasure Principle and Cognitive Process

Freud use the Pleasure Principle to understand the operation of Unconscious. To him, Unconscious is probably evolved as a necessary mental apparatus to ensure the survival of the body. Therefore many consider that idea is only adequate to explain the satisfaction of lower human level such as Food. Water and Sex. However, Humanist’s idea of hierarchy of Human need is in a means of ‘extending’ the same model of Unconscious into other psychology realm. Essentially, in the eye of Humanist, there is no difference between different human needs in terms of its basic structure: All of them rely on Freud’s Deprivation-Satisfaction model. I always ponder if there is any fundamental difference between human needs at different hierarchy? Could the need of self-esteem, the need for self-actualization be anything categorically different from the need for food and sex? Is there anything wrong by placing all Human needs in the same framework of understanding? Are all human needs share the same psychological mechanism? Or each human need has a slightly different mechanism unique to its nature? Are all of them has basis in neurology?
What led me to ask this question is an very simple observation of the most common psychological process: Thinking. The secret of all thinker, Mathematician and researcher is all of them would enjoy the pleasure upon the complete resolution of their curiosity. Is that feeling of satisfaction be any difference from the sexual satisfaction? Are they base on similar/same neurological mechanism? So is that right in asserting that Pleasure Principle not just rule the Unconscious, it is also the same mechanism in the Higher Cognitive Process like Logical Thinking and Analyzing? Humanist Psychology does open the door for the possibility of understanding the Higher Cognitive Process via the existing knowledge on the how basic Human needs are built and satisfy. Or the reality is just the opposite, it is the Basic Human need like hunger and sex mimic the satisfaction mechanism of Higher Cognitive Process? Or it is the Higher Cognitive Process doesn’t have its own expressive mechanism, it has to borrow from the Lower? How could we differentiate between them? Is the phrase ‘The pleasure of knowledge’ has any literal truth value?

The process of flotation

This is written as a sequel to my last discussion on flotation, the theoretical breakthrough I have is that the gravity force acting on water molecule is NOT negligible as stated in Advance Physics. Just like air molecules, all of the water molecules is accelerating downward at 9.8/s; the only difference is a stronger bonding force between water molecules tend to wear down the effect of gravity, thus giving an impression that water is act as many layers stacked together. And the layer is responding as if it is elastic. Since gravity is unidirectional, thus the elasticity must be coming from the electromagnetic forces acting as spring between the molecules. How does that related to the process of flotation?

In my last article, I suppose that as an non-water-permeable object immersed in water, it would first push out the water molecules nearest to it. Since the gravity has a stronger effect on the object than the water molecules surrounding it, therefore it is squeezing the water molecules just beneath it. Notice that the surface tension is elicited by difference of acceleration by gravity between the object and water molecule which is also depending on the variation of the strength of the horizontal bonding force in respond to their difference in acceleration.

Undeniably, some water molecules would be accelerate downward by the object, while other pushed side-ward. While part of the later would pass the momentum sideways, other dissipate their momentum by pushing other water molecules upward, thus we see the rising of water near the immersed object. As the former travel sideways, they continually dissipate the momentum by pushing other upward or sideways. Undeniably, some of those kinetic energy lost as thermal energy. Thus, some part of gravitational energy from the object has heated up the surrounding water. If those travel sideway eventually reach unmovable solid mass like land, part of gravitational force is absorbed by land mass as heat. As the unmovable solid mass bounce back, the object immersed in water get a temporary lift. As stated in last article, some part of the weight is ‘cancel’ by water streams accelerated by the object running into each other,

The conclusion is by taken into consideration of the gravity’s effect on water molecules, part of the flotation force is coming from the rebound effect of the land mass at the bottom of ocean, part of the weight of the object is used to heating up the water.

To test this hypothesis, we can try an experiment which a heavy object with lower density than water is slowly immersed into the water inside a bottle. Then in a thermal insulated environment, we can measure the change of temperature in the process of flotation, then we can also measure the water pressure at the side of bottle. In according to the discussion above, we should expect both of them to be rise as the result. Also, we can break bottle by immersing the object if the object is massive enough.

Anyone like to do this experiment?

Evolution of human being

Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 9:09 PM

Human being is at a cross road to evolve to a higher level.
My proposal of ascendancy is:
A. Ascend from Gold(金), or metal in two senses. Develop substitute
to metal, since the metal ore on Earth is exhaustible. We need to
develop something as endurable, strong using maybe carbon or organic
compound. Nano technology is making some progress, but not far enough
to reach metal. In terms of Physics, why must we use only metal to
construct electrical appliance?
B. Ascend from Wood(木). Stop cutting tree to make furniture and
paper. Let them to provide the oxygen we all need. By maybe replace
them with recyclable plastic material.
C. Ascend from Water(水). Stop polluting the ocean then drink from it
as if we never pollute it. In terms of Physics,  we need to start
thinking fluid dynamic without the medium of water, or any medium. We
may develop Fluid Dynamic of Space(空間) or ether.
D. Ascend from Fire(火). Must generation of electricity using burning
as part of the process? Must all motive force come from explosion?
Burning consume oxygen and  produce carbon dioxide. It is taking us
from what need essentially and increase the Green House Effect. As a
later step, we human being should also re-engine human body to live
without the necessity of burning.(Direct extraction of energy from
space)
E. Ascend from Earth(土). Why real estate make money by monopolizing
and selling space originally belong to the public? Why is a space
which by itself produce nothing worth more than it contain? Why is we
allow private interest to make money other than a place to settle by
depriving of what we originally own? Human could only evolve if we
stop center our thinking on the land, on the boundary between country.
This non-sense must be stopped. Land by itself doesn’t produce
anything. If we focus on it but forgetting the role of producer, our
economy will never be sustainable. Every member of society should
produce something concrete, usable and of some function; reselling the
public area is not a productive activity. Worst, it bind our
imagination.

Inspiration for Jul 11, 2005

Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:21 PM

Thought this is important, therefore I tell you: I remember once I read a book about complexity, it has theory that certain class of organism is evolving while some is devolving by the virtue of their level of complexity. It even calculate the critical value for this to happen. Their is no magic behind this except pure Mathematical and naturalistic reason. I wonder if this concept could applied to explain alignment of Magnetic field of individual atoms.

A thought on electrons

Fri, Jul 8, 2005 at 10:07 AM

1. Hydraulic of electron flowing, why we can not apply fluid dynamic into flowing of electrons? Consider a conductor wire as a pipe, what will happen?
2. Since electron has mass, the direct consequence is that we see massive relocation of mass in any transmission line; theoretically we should also see the change of net gravitational acting force as a result. Why we not observe anything?
3. If we applied a strong electrical charge to polarize a metallic object, since proton is considerably heavier than electron, should the object be heavier on one side than other?
(Do you still not understand the point of experiment concerning horizontal or vertical placed electronics? It is the evidence for or against the theory you accept. )