### Author Topic: The fallacy of modern EM  (Read 507 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

• Sr. member
• Posts: 423
• let the voltage do the work
##### The fallacy of modern EM
« on: October 06, 2021, 20:58:58 pm »
Hello people, I am writing to inform you about the equations for the force of the electric and magnetic fields maxwell used= these  are wrong or at least right for select situations but fail with others, this is NOT A UNIVERSAL LAW and should not be taught as such in schools.  Both the lorrentz and coulomb law are incomplete!!! This is the reason there are dozens of paradoxes which can't be solved! I can get the same EM equations without using fancy notations like maxwell, just differentiation of first order DE.

Here they produce an empirical law but it's still not simple enough!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265262978_On_Electrodynamics_of_Uniform_Moving_Charges

Even in the orthodox cases the EM equations fall apart when the particle which makes the radiation is near the speed of light!!!!  Complete bollocks !! I have a strict condition that the particles are not near the speed of light in order to make accurate approximations and get the maxwell equations with my method which used the more complex equations. Maxwell used the incomplete equations and never made any mention of the speed of the radiative particles because there's no way to figure it out with incomplete equations. How do the EM equations change for speeds near c? I've no idea, never bothered with them. The only way you're ever gonna get speeds near c is with high-energy sparks!

• Sr. member
• Posts: 423
• let the voltage do the work
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2021, 15:06:33 pm »
This modified lorrentz equation is what you wanna use

F= q v' x B + B' x q' v

not the maxwell equations because they are fancy mathematical tricks to get the same results with hiding the true mechanism behind these phenomena

div E = charge density

div B = 0  the same magnetic flux that goes out goes in

curl E = change of the enclosed magnetic flux density ONLY APPLIES FOR SELECT SITUATIONS

curl B =  conductor current density + change in the enclosed electric flux field ONLY APPLIES FOR SELECT SITUATIONS

and you use these last ones with relativity transformations to get one from the other

the big problem is with using closed integrals for the enclosed fields!! there is no need to use enclosed loops, it's the biggest cause for every paradox, it's just that for the cases of enclosed loops the force is much greater in everyday applications so these equations are good as approximations and should not be used as bread and butter, just because the force is small with the equipment we use today doesn't mean we should still be using these 100 year old equations , when you use high enough energy these forces are measurable and change the results, you can never cancel a magnetic field you only cancel the force you measure!! how do you think you can get this hidden force? It's simple you just use canceling magnetic fields! How do you make this force great? Simple you use high energy sparks! Now you get the force the empirical EM laws have in them, the new force vector component is not the same as the traditional force vectors!!!

For the simple linear conductor case the hidden force can still be measured because the force components don't go out of whack , in the loop conductor the case is different the hidden force cannot be measured if the B fields don't cancel.

in essence there are 3 forces!! the regular lorrentz force, the hidden lorrentz force and inductive lorrentz force !!

F= q * v' x B + B' x q' * v +  q *(sqrt(a/r)) x B(sqrt(a/r) ) all different vector components
« Last Edit: October 07, 2021, 18:07:41 pm by geon »

• Sr. member
• Posts: 423
• let the voltage do the work
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2021, 18:25:36 pm »
you can't get away from the lorrentz law

this is easily explained by the induction forces because the regular lorrentz force and inductive lorrentz force cancel each other out inside the receiver and the  regular lorrentz forces between the antenna and receiver give the resultant forces
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 10:59:54 am by geon »

• Sr. member
• Posts: 423
• let the voltage do the work
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2021, 10:14:54 am »
if you want this to work

• Sr. member
• Posts: 423
• let the voltage do the work
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2021, 16:17:48 pm »
You can consider the hidden lorrentz force as a magnetomotive lorrentz force! It's close to zero in most cases. No free energy here, lenz law still applies!!! Believe me you want to consider the magnetic flux as real, it solves all paradoxes, the next stage is to consider it as wave components, the B field is the most basic field before you go into more crazy theories. The E field is secondary, even though these are the same fields! There's only spacetime and the zoo of elementary particles.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 16:47:18 pm by geon »

• Jr. member
• Posts: 4
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2021, 13:28:30 pm »
I just want to bring up what I see as the main difference in the alternator vs the EPG when it comes to producing power and efficiencies..   We will never get fully way from the counter electromotive force.. But we can work to get rid of a good amount of CEMF while maintaining the same power out.. The goal of any generator is to create strong fluxuating B fields within the loops of coils.. You cannot create a rotor on a armature that has strong fluxuating magnetic fields within the loop because the loop obstructs the ability of a iron material to pass through.. So Stan came up with a way to get strong fluxing magnetic material to pass through the loops without the need of a rotor/armature by using a tubular passage to carry strong B field generating materials like iron.  So now if we think about the alternator and what the purpose of a stator core is.. i think we can consider it a magnetic field amplifier.. it allows the rotors magnetic field to induce the needed strong magnetic field fluxuations in the center of the pickup coils.. the stator core carries an excess of CEMF to be able to work. so a stator core style generator has the inherent problem of how it goes about in getting strong B field fluxuations into the center of the pickup coils.

If you read stans EPG patent and look into the reference patents you will see a patent from batelle where they created a unit a lot like a EPG but it used solid magnetic spheres being passed through a tube with pickup coils and the magnetic spheres are being propelled by air.

• Sr. member
• Posts: 423
• let the voltage do the work
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2021, 16:03:34 pm »
I just want to bring up what I see as the main difference in the alternator vs the EPG when it comes to producing power and efficiencies..   We will never get fully way from the counter electromotive force.. But we can work to get rid of a good amount of CEMF while maintaining the same power out.. The goal of any generator is to create strong fluxuating B fields within the loops of coils.. You cannot create a rotor on a armature that has strong fluxuating magnetic fields within the loop because the loop obstructs the ability of a iron material to pass through.. So Stan came up with a way to get strong fluxing magnetic material to pass through the loops without the need of a rotor/armature by using a tubular passage to carry strong B field generating materials like iron.  So now if we think about the alternator and what the purpose of a stator core is.. i think we can consider it a magnetic field amplifier.. it allows the rotors magnetic field to induce the needed strong magnetic field fluxuations in the center of the pickup coils.. the stator core carries an excess of CEMF to be able to work. so a stator core style generator has the inherent problem of how it goes about in getting strong B field fluxuations into the center of the pickup coils.

If you read stans EPG patent and look into the reference patents you will see a patent from batelle where they created a unit a lot like a EPG but it used solid magnetic spheres being passed through a tube with pickup coils and the magnetic spheres are being propelled by air.

The ferrite cores in coils and motors act as a cushion for the BEMF ! Take the tesla induction motor for example and the top of the art axial motors they use in cars, they all use ferrite cores to reduce torque ripple by cushioning the BEMF, the BEMF is how movement is made.
In short whenever there's movement ferrite cores act as a cushion, whenever there's no movement ferrite cores concentrate the magnetic flux.

I tried to make a motor using stan's toroidal coil principle because in paper it should work, I didn't succeed and I wasted 3 months on making FEMM simulations, the flux changes shapes all the time , it's nothing like they say it's in books.
I remember I put cylindrical magnets and toroidal coils of rectangular cross section , inside, outside, in many many positions, the only spot where there was BEMF was at the edge of the coil because there's a gradient of B flux there, there are dozens of patents from the 1950s using toroidal coils in motors, the best I could get is a motor for bicycles! The torque and power was bad, so I abandoned toroidal coils and works on axial topologies.

I did design a  brand new type of motor that'll never get released but the electronics needed to drive it are too complex, in essence instead of giving it constant voltage you have to make maps of voltage for every rpm to keep the current constant instead! It has been done in research but they haven't even applied this principle in industry yet and the know how behind building strong motor power supplies is secret because there's a lot of \$\$\$ involved now with the EV bubble. This delivers 5-10 times more power and torque than the YASA motor in the same dimensions and less weight. These oxford guys got millions in funding, it's ridiculous

« Last Edit: October 09, 2021, 16:46:12 pm by geon »

• Hero member
• Posts: 4441
##### Re: The fallacy of modern EM
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2021, 08:27:48 am »
I just want to bring up what I see as the main difference in the alternator vs the EPG when it comes to producing power and efficiencies..   We will never get fully way from the counter electromotive force.. But we can work to get rid of a good amount of CEMF while maintaining the same power out.. The goal of any generator is to create strong fluxuating B fields within the loops of coils.. You cannot create a rotor on a armature that has strong fluxuating magnetic fields within the loop because the loop obstructs the ability of a iron material to pass through.. So Stan came up with a way to get strong fluxing magnetic material to pass through the loops without the need of a rotor/armature by using a tubular passage to carry strong B field generating materials like iron.  So now if we think about the alternator and what the purpose of a stator core is.. i think we can consider it a magnetic field amplifier.. it allows the rotors magnetic field to induce the needed strong magnetic field fluxuations in the center of the pickup coils.. the stator core carries an excess of CEMF to be able to work. so a stator core style generator has the inherent problem of how it goes about in getting strong B field fluxuations into the center of the pickup coils.

If you read stans EPG patent and look into the reference patents you will see a patent from batelle where they created a unit a lot like a EPG but it used solid magnetic spheres being passed through a tube with pickup coils and the magnetic spheres are being propelled by air.

There are people claiming that Meyer was using the bemf.....not blocking it....