Proposal: Electricity Animation

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:30 pm

Nevyn, who's the director?

Hey, folks, at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468&p=115598#p115579 Arend Lammertink shows a photon model that seems very similar to MM's model. Here's the animation.


Ain't that something? See how the blue balls go in at the poles and out at the equator, then recycle? Yous should read that entire post, since you'll see a lot of his reasoning there.

By the way, Jared and maybe Nevyn, how soon might you be starting on a simulation or animation of electricity and or wifi? Is the question annoying? If so, I'll try to think of an unannoying way to ask.

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:30 pm

It's not annoying at all, I'm the one that derailed the thread focusing on the singular quanta and its motion. But it is very relevant, since even electrical charge photons moving between atoms and protons and inside molecules will move in this fashion.

If you look a that animated GIF, we see no such complex motions of the blue particles. It looks cool and all, but I don't see how it has any bearing on this motion. What is causing them to curve? Why are they drawn from the equator to the poles like that? What is causing those vertical field lines?

That looks a lot like math-art to me.

"A real, physical medium called aether exists and it behaves like an ideal fluid or gas."

This contradicts pretty much everything Mathis has done with the photon, so I'm not really following how that's relevant? A field of what? Why is it behaving like a fluid? (not a liquid, mind you, a fluid) Why is it behaving like a gas? Photons behave like neither, as far as I can tell.

"With our model, this recursive problem is resolved. Charge is no longer considered to be the cause for the electric field nor electromagnetism. That does not mean that the concept of "charge" is completely thrown overboard, but it is considered to be a consequence of the (vortex) structured fluid flows particles and photons are predicted to consist of.

In other words: it's not charge which causes electromagnetism, but the dynamic flowing structures we call particles or photons are predicted to be "constructed" in such a way that they "emit" electric and magnetic fields as has been measured."

As you can see, they missed the point of defining charge altogether. To say charge doesn't cause E/M is pretty much a huge flaw in their theory, the same massive gap Mathis has been filling for years now. I don't see any reason to explore that theory given we have a far better one to work with already.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:55 pm

There's a lot I don't understand in MM's model, so I ask questions and if I don't hear or find answers, I look around to see if others may have something to contribute. Arend seems to have found something about Maxwell's displacement field that needed correcting, and since MM also reinterpreted the displacement field, I figure Arend too may have figured out something that would answer some of the questions. To me, photon streams and flows seem like fluids. Sorry for the distraction.

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:27 am

Not a distraction, no sorrow my friend. I work with fluids in Maya as well as particles and find no real similarities between their behaviors - though often I use particles to run my fluid sims. Especially when doing liquids, such as this example:

https://vimeo.com/109975420

Fluids have a variety of attributes that particles do not, and are basically a VOI of the particles involved. So you have viscosity, buoyancy, fuel, heat, etc., many variables that are often driven by particles but the fluid is not a particle sim itself. Much like the photon has no wave/particle duality. It IS a particle, far as we can tell. The wave is the motion of the thing, not the thing itself. This is true of all waves by definition, so I'm rather with Mathis on the mainstream ever confusing the two in the first place. Blatant misdirection which has lasted what, a hundred years? Just terrible.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:21 am

The vimeo looks realistic for water movements & waves.

Now how does photon movements & waves compare to that for electricity & wifi? I'm looking forward to a progress report or something.

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:56 pm

Well my guess would be that electricity (directionalized streams of photons through the poles of the materials involved) is an effect where inside those materials' nuceli, many spins are being stripped from larger photons to get them down to the first few levels of stacking, if not down to the axial spin itself. So they might tend to have a smaller radius than the incoming photon charge already present, and thus escape incoming charge a bit easier since they're smaller.

And perhaps (though this is just conjecture) the magnetic effect is just the opposite. That is to say that magnetic photon emissions may have taken on a an additional spin or two before exiting the nucleus, giving them a bit more effectiveness in the field. Mathis has talked about that "snap" of magnets and explained it pretty rigorously, but I think that augmenting or degrading charge may play a role in these effects.

As I understand it, in our electric devices (including semiconductors and such), the photons are literally carrying electrons along for the ride. The much larger electrons bang into various switches and detectors and whatnot, resistors and capacitors and transistors are all examples of these, and "flip" the various switches and gates. These gates are getting quite small, at 14 nanometers now in modern CPUs and GPUs, but that's still nowhere near the size of the electron or the photon.

So it's taking a great many electrons to "flip" these switches, although of course the charge itself is doing much of the work. It's all direct bombardment, no need for superposition or tunneling or any quantum magics. While this is obviously useful in many ways (the electron), is there any reason beyond engineering that we're not using the actual quanta to flip these switches, which could then be much smaller?

Is a photon transistor possible? Would this not be a great deal faster than electron-based devices?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:12 pm

Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal? And I've read that electrons only move a few mm per second in conductors. Would such small movements of electrons do any significant work? In a battery circuit MM says the current is toward the load in both wires. I suppose the so-called neutral or ground wire may be too weak to move electrons along. Does anyone know about that?

I thought maybe electrons on conductor surfaces might act as guides for photon traffic. Or would copper protons act as guides? MM said neutral atoms have very little charge flow, while ions have a lot. Electrons tend to plug the flows I think. So I suppose ions tend to be on conductor surfaces. I guess that would be both positive and negative, i.e. stationary positive copper ions and slightly moving electrons. Eh?

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:46 pm

I apologize for my sardonic nature, but what I meant by the usage of the electron is that it's all they've got to work with in mainstream theory. All their theory, especially in regards to electrical current and semiconductors and such, presumes that electrons basically teleport around, through surfaces, and magically cause various effects.

But we know that it's not just the electrons, it's the photons themselves driving on through. " Charge is the summed mass of sub-particles that are impacting the objects being repulsed or attracted." (http://milesmathis.com/charge.html)

The electrons are just along for the ride, almost a side-effect of charge current. No, they don't do much work inside conductors at all, compared to the photon stream. But that's what the mainstream tells us about electricity, that it's based on the electron.

"Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal?"

The current may be on the surface, but the charge is inescapably throughout. It's just priming the surface, much like the light bulb or the battery. The conductive materials are directionalizing the flow of charge photons, and they are doing the work.  Remember that every proton is recycling 19* its own mass per second alone, and of course conductors are combinations and configurations of multiple protons, neutrons, and electrons. So we already have a ton of charge to work with, being directionalized by its engineering and its physical configuratoin. Add enough new photons, and the work begins.

In his paper on the Pyramid,
"Now all we have to do is notice that electrons must move from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure. They simply follow the charge wind. And I mean this literally, not figuratively. The electrons are physically carried along with the B-photons, by direct contact. Since the B-photons must move from areas of higher density to lower—based on nothing but statistics or entropy—the electrons must do so as well. In this way, electric potential is nothing but pressure or wind or entropy. The field lines are not lines of potential, they are lines of pressure, caused by simple bombardment. Our wind here is a very fine wind indeed, which is why we don’t feel it. But quantum particles do feel it, especially the smallest, free-est quantum particles—electrons." (http://milesmathis.com/pyramid.html)

Electricity is just a directionalized expression of this effect. The conductive material isn't exactly "shooting" photons along a direction (current), but that's where they're most likely to go based on the inherent motions and proclivities of the field.

Also, I'm still working on an electrical motion-model based on all this, but had to tackle the Stacked Spin topic first to get there. Now I'm scripting a controller for my particles which will allow us to just drop in the spin numbers, which can be applied to trillions of particles, then run some self-collision and inter-collision dynamics. We can watch as the spins pile up or spin down, watch electrons be born (and protons/neutrons), and eventually test much of Mathis's theory in this way. I needed a good reason to double my workstations's RAM anyway, so here we go.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:43 am

LloydK wrote:Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal?

Only for high frequency current. The higher the frequency the more the charge moves to the outside of the wire. This is known as the skin effect.

I think this is evidence that there is considerable photon current through the wire. My explanation for the skin effect is that the photons traveling through the atoms in the wire take longer to get through than the photons that just go around the atoms. When the frequency gets high enough, and we are talking gigahertz and above, the photons exiting the atoms find themselves amongst other photons that are in the opposite cycle (remember that charge does not alternate direction but alternates spin). Since the charge coming from the atoms has the opposite spin direction, it causes more collisions as they interact with each other. This causes a build up or blockage through the center of the wire and the charge moves more to the outside of it.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:12 pm

Nevyn wrote:
LloydK wrote:Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal?

Only for high frequency current. The higher the frequency the more the charge moves to the outside of the wire. This is known as the skin effect.

I think this is evidence that there is considerable photon current through the wire. My explanation for the skin effect is that the photons traveling through the atoms in the wire take longer to get through than the photons that just go around the atoms. When the frequency gets high enough, and we are talking gigahertz and above, the photons exiting the atoms find themselves amongst other photons that are in the opposite cycle (remember that charge does not alternate direction but alternates spin). Since the charge coming from the atoms has the opposite spin direction, it causes more collisions as they interact with each other. This causes a build up or blockage through the center of the wire and the charge moves more to the outside of it.

Hmm. That sounds familiar, Nevyn. Maybe you already told me that before, but I forgot your modifier, or condition, i.e. the photon current or traffic has to be especially high. Will you folks then be able to put the atomic models together with the spin models etc and show us electricity and wifi soon? It's exciting to contemplate. Thumbs up to Jared too.

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:05 pm

LloydK wrote:
Hmm. That sounds familiar, Nevyn. Maybe you already told me that before, but I forgot your modifier, or condition, i.e. the photon current or traffic has to be especially high. Will you folks then be able to put the atomic models together with the spin models etc and show us electricity and wifi soon? It's exciting to contemplate. Thumbs up to Jared too.

I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it. It isn't high current though, just high frequency so it is changing spin direction very quickly.

I think we can show the basics of electricity, but wifi is so far above that, conceptually and in complexity, that I doubt we could show that yet. Wifi is about signals and protocols but if you just mean showing how radio transmission works then it may be feasible. I don't think I have a good enough understanding of Miles work in this area to do it just yet. I am interested to see what Jared can put together and hopefully that will give me some ideas on how to tackle it.

I need to go over those papers again, it has been a while so I have an abstract view of it but not the concrete view that I need to implement something. Of course, it is the building that helps me get that level of understanding so maybe I just need to dive in and hope I can swim. But I really need to get back in to Atomic Viewer and get that sorted out. I've left it too long as it is, which makes it difficult to get back in to. I'll probably only tackle electricity if I can see something that I can add that Jared can't in his models. If they are enough to show everything, then I probably won't bother. No need for us both to work on the same things.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:28 pm

Yes, as I understand it currently (although I haven't studied it much", WiFi is simply radio frequency photons. No different from other radio devices, other than set frequencies and then protocols that define the connections. It's not much different than cellular or CB radio stuff. I'm not sure how that would be important to electrical models - kinda seems like magnetism would be the next logical step after electricity, in my motion models.

But I apologize, seems like I have a long way to go from stacked spins forward to electricity. I have to take the complexity of my motion-model, increase it to the proton spin level, and then use particle instancing to generate billions of these particles in motion and set their collisions very high and run the sim. It may be an overnight rendering; I may need to link all three of my computers together to make this work on a realistic timeline. I am looking into GPU-based particle instancing, since I have pretty powerful graphics cards here, which might be beneficial vs. CPU calcs (8, 8, and 4 CPU cores vs. 1152 GPU cores).

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:14 am

You're lucky Jared, you can take as long as you want to render something if all you want out of it is a video. I don't get that luxury. I have to work in real time (model time, not necessarily true real time). That is the difficult part for me when I start to think about a particle simulator (and I do think about it quite often since I've always wanted to build one), I have to make it efficient. That's why I have been looking into using pure math to figure out where a BPhoton is in its spin path at any given time (which I mentioned recently). I don't want to calculate all of those spins when I only really need them in a collision (or to figure out if there is a collision).

My theory is that I treat all particles as being a sphere with a radius of its top level spin. If those spheres collide, then I use the spins to figure out if there is actually a collision and if so, deal with it accordingly. The specifics of that collision still need to be figured out but I think I have a decent idea of them. I'm currently in the process of building a webpage to describe the collisions to build stacked spins with lots of little animations to show each stage.

My particle simulator will definitely be calculated on the GPU as much as possible. I've done GPU work before but I am a little bit limited in the browser since none of them have taken on the WebCL specification like they have WebGL. I may end up going back to Java or C/C++ where I can do it the way I want to with total access to the GPU. To do it in the browser I have to squash all of my data into textures and that sounds like a real pain in the butt. If I had true access to the GPU then I could define my data as I want it with no need to convert when it goes in and out of the GPU.

On a side note, I know it sounds like 1000 cores must be better than 8 but it doesn't always work out that way. In this case it will but the CPU is much faster than the GPU at doing calculations. The advantage that the GPU has is being able to calculate many things at the same time (which certainly applies here). But you're probably aware of that already.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:17 pm

So to clarify, Nevyn, we really only want the fundamental quanta colliding at any given level, correct? We don't want their bounding VOIs to be colliding, since those are just "virtual" tools we use to visualize the motions, yes?

I'm very familiar with CPU and GPU usage in these things, since Maya utilizes as much as you can give it for calculation. But I've only done a bit of scripting myself, no actual coding, and Maya Embedded Language (MEL) is only useful in Maya, obviously. A bit of Python now and again, though I am not remotely fluent in either.

My plan is, to simulate electricity, to use GPU instancing on our particle. What that does is only reference the motion rig once, taking up no more memory for millions or billions than it does for just the first one. That's also how I "paint" in all my plants, trees, and flowers in my artwork - I make a few variants of each, then run a particle emission from the landscape surfaces, where each particle acts as a locator for the various plants to "spawn" from when I hit play on the simulator. I control the locations with texture maps (so that white means nothing emits at that location, black means full emission, for example), so I have a bit of experience with this technique already.

But throwing it all into a given volume to see how it works will be a challenge, and then modeling iron or copper or something to show electrical flow... It's gonna take me awhile, but it's how I'm approaching this topic.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:45 pm

Jared Magneson wrote:So to clarify, Nevyn, we really only want the fundamental quanta colliding at any given level, correct? We don't want their bounding VOIs to be colliding, since those are just "virtual" tools we use to visualize the motions, yes?

Absolutely. Only the BPhoton is real so that is the only thing that can collide. I plan to use the top spin level VOI as a test to determine if a collision is possible. If those VOIs don't intersect then there is no possibility that the actual BPhotons could collide. This just saves me from calculating the spin levels down to the BPhoton if I don't have to.

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm very familiar with CPU and GPU usage in these things, since Maya utilizes as much as you can give it for calculation. But I've only done a bit of scripting myself, no actual coding, and Maya Embedded Language (MEL) is only useful in Maya, obviously. A bit of Python now and again, though I am not remotely fluent in either.

I wasn't sure how much Maya, or similar tools, would hide from you. When I first started doing GPU programming, I ran some tests to determine how much data was too much for the CPU and better for the GPU and I was surprised when it turned out to be a lot. Not millions but a considerable amount. I was doing charge interactions with an electron so I was calculating whether there was a collision or not, I wasn't using it for rendering. Just a pure number cruncher which I would hook up to a 3D engine for viewing later to check everything.

Jared Magneson wrote:My plan is, to simulate electricity, to use GPU instancing on our particle. What that does is only reference the motion rig once, taking up no more memory for millions or billions than it does for just the first one. That's also how I "paint" in all my plants, trees, and flowers in my artwork - I make a few variants of each, then run a particle emission from the landscape surfaces, where each particle acts as a locator for the various plants to "spawn" from when I hit play on the simulator. I control the locations with texture maps (so that white means nothing emits at that location, black means full emission, for example), so I have a bit of experience with this technique already.

Yeah, that sounds similar to how I implemented charge particles in Atomic Viewer which you can read about here if you want to.

I think things will be a little different if you want to determine interactions though. I don't know what Maya offers in that regard.

Jared Magneson wrote:But throwing it all into a given volume to see how it works will be a challenge, and then modeling iron or copper or something to show electrical flow... It's gonna take me awhile, but it's how I'm approaching this topic.

So you're thinking fairly low level then. Actually looking inside of the wires to see charge flow through the atoms that make the wire. That's good but I think we will need at least 2 levels of animations for this. There is the low level animations to see how charge flows through atoms, etc, and then there is the higher level view that shows the circuit. We don't want to see atoms in that higher view and it should work with higher concepts like charge, current and voltage. This is more of an abstract view where you can see the battery, wires, light bulb, etc, and show how charge moves around the circuit. Does that make sense?

To get some ideas for modeling atoms, have a look over Atomic Viewer. Use my Periodic Table page to view the atoms you want to look at. You probably don't want to go to the level of detail that I have in that app, but it should help you to visualize the charge flows.

Note: You will need to login to this forum to use the links I have embedded in this post. Some of my statements probably don't make sense unless you can see the links.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:39 pm

Nevyn wrote:...and then there is the higher level view that shows the circuit. We don't want to see atoms in that higher view and it should work with higher concepts like charge, current and voltage. This is more of an abstract view where you can see the battery, wires, light bulb, etc, and show how charge moves around the circuit. Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense, and also will make life much easier. I don't need to build up from stacked spins to achieve such diagrams at all. I can jump right into them, after some quick re-reads of the pertinent papers. I'll save low-level modeling for later or when I'm highly motivated to script the stacked spins somehow. I think I'll start with the light bulb, since it's the most straightforward.

I've seen your Periodic Table (had it bookmarked) and it's excellent work. Pretty impressive. Has Miles discussed it with you at all? I can't imagine he hasn't seen it yet, as well. But I hadn't read your detailed descriptions of the shaders, etc., so thanks for linking to that! Good stuff.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:18 pm

Jared Magneson wrote:
I've seen your Periodic Table (had it bookmarked) and it's excellent work. Pretty impressive. Has Miles discussed it with you at all? I can't imagine he hasn't seen it yet, as well. But I hadn't read your detailed descriptions of the shaders, etc., so thanks for linking to that!  Good stuff.

Well, to be honest, I can't take all the credit for the actual Periodic Table page. I used an example provided by the 3D Javascript API I use (ThreeJS) and just made it link to my Atomic Viewer so that you could see each element. I did write a Periodic Table page many years ago, which was very similar but 2D, but I didn't have the browser port of Atomic Viewer then, only my desktop version which I would generate videos out of, much like you do with Maya. That old version was pretty basic but it still worked well for the time. Each element would give you an image or video, depending on whether it had a carousel level which was the only animated part.

I contacted Miles way back then about it. I didn't have a website at that time so I was giving it to him to publish on his site. The problem was the size of all those videos was more than he could store and I had more to come. I wasn't too confident in my models either and wanted Miles to verify them but his time is limited and there was a lot to process. I didn't want to pester him about it so I kept working on my apps and models.

When I ported Atomic Viewer to the browser I contacted Miles about it, again offering to give it to him to host, since it was pure code he didn't need to store heaps of videos anymore. I still wasn't confident in my atomic models though so we got bogged down in that again. Eventually, through discussions on this forum, I saw that it would just be easier for me to create my own site, so I did so. I had a few teething problems with hosting at first but eventually found Linode and am using one of their VMs and I love it. I have total responsibility but I have total power too. I can do whatever I want (and am capable of doing) so it has allowed me to use other tools to my advantage.

So at the moment, Miles has offered to publish a link to my app on his site when I am ready, but I am holding everything up as I haven't spent much time on AV for a while. I feel guilty about it but every time I try, it just doesn't feel right so I move on to other things. I tend to work when and where I feel the passion. All of this talk of stacked spins lately got me thinking along those lines again, so I made some improvements to that app (and now a re-write).

I'm still stuck with a lot of models that I am not totally confident in, too. Analyzing each atom is a lot of work and I find myself tied up in the development of the app so I don't spend any time on the models themselves. If you know any good chemists with an open mind, a thirst for truth and a bit of spare time, then send them my way!
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:06 pm

I did notice that some elements weren't clickable, and assumed you hadn't gotten that far (Uranium, for example), though it could be a browser flaw on my end (Firefox). But it's still really good stuff. A disclaimer of "In Progress" for those unfinished or unverified ones might be all you need to "go public" though, really. I've done a ton of web design and web graphics if you ever need anything on that end, by the way. I'd be happy to help.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 191
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:31 pm

.
Jared, (Nevyn)

I would ask for your opinion on the idea of an "ortho (WithCarousal)" periodic table configuration. (see elsewhere here at the site). All elements would be selectable from that configuration. I tried to convince Nevyn but he hasn't said one way or the other.

Move than mere novelty, it becomes a symbol, echoing the atomic configurations of all the elements. How to arrange the elements isn't "real", but it allows for a far better understanding than the current table (we all know and love) does.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 560
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sun Oct 30, 2016 6:24 pm

Here is the original post about this idea and the following few posts discuss it a bit.

http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t114p50-atomic-model-editor#1029

I suggest we move such discussion over to that thread.

I had forgotten about that idea, Airman.

Jared, you are correct that the elements that don't work are because I don't have models for them. A nice message saying that would would be good. I don't have clear guidance on elements above Uranium. With Miles modeling Uranium as the connection of 2 other elements, it broke the method being used for all previous elements. Are all atoms above Uranium actually molecules? I don't know.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:33 pm

This is starting to sound like what Tesla was able to do powering an electric motor wirelessly in Colorado.

Wireless power transmission safely charges devices anywhere within a room
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-wireless-power-transmission-safely-devices.html

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:41 pm

.
Hi Lloyd, I would say the researchers are examining wireless power transmission schemes. I believe Tesla demonstrated wireless radio control and wireless power transmission; but he also showed how power can be obtained from the earth, using large structures and pulsed power as a source of free power for all.

Your article listed a related one.
Flying drones could soon re-charge whilst airborne with new technology
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-drones-re-charge-airborne-technology.html
October 20, 2016
Scientists have demonstrated a highly efficient method for wirelessly transferring power to a drone while it is flying.
The breakthrough could in theory allow flying drones to stay airborne indefinitely – simply hovering over a ground support vehicle to recharge – opening up new potential industrial applications.

Now please turn your attention to,
So What is Really Going on Behind the Nuclear Programs
http://mileswmathis.com/caes.pdf

Since the vehicle over Phoenix stalled for over two hours, my assumption is they had some electrical problem.  They may have flown over a local area of charge nullification, caused either by military bases on the ground or by some natural phenomenon. They had to leave their lights on so that normal aircraft in the area wouldn't fly into them, causing more damage all round.

Note that Miles' paper covers a great deal of ground. It seems wireless power transfer already exists. Miles is adding bits of science details to his non science papers. Take the discussion of uranium:  

With that in mind, I returned to Wikipedia, where I studied the page for Uranium. I have been there before for my science papers, but never with this question in mind. What jumped out at me this time was the fact that Uranium is very electropositive. What is more, once it splits, it often splits into Caesium, which is the most electropositive element. What does that mean? It means that these substances produce electrons very readily. It doesn't take much energy to free an electron, and that free electron can be used for power. In fact, it takes less energy to release it than it provides once free, which is the key here. It is like money from nothing.

Problem is, Caesium is very rare. It occurs in small quantities in pollucite, but it costs more to extract than it is worth. I assume it was found it was much more cost effective to get it from Uranium. People think Uranium is rare, but it isn't. It is more common than Mercury or Silver. Caesium exists at three parts per million in the crust, but Uranium exists as high-grade ore http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx at 200,000 ppm. That's as common as Tin or Zinc. Just from that, I would assume scientists have discovered some way to generate cheap power from Caesium, via electron production, and the entire nuclear story is just a cover.
 .

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 560
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:21 pm

.
Adding to the previous post.

Quoting the end of http://mileswmathis.com/caes.pdf

In closing, I have a final tidbit for my science readers who may be here with us.  Along with most people, I hadn't understood until today how prevalent Uranium is in the Earth's crust.  Discovering that made me suspicious once more, because it doesn't make any sense, given the current theory of element production.  Elements are said to be produced by fusion in stars.  But most stars don't fuse past element number 2, Helium.  None fuse past iron.  Since Uranium is element number 92, it could only be produced by the very largest stars in collapse.  It would spread out across the galaxy when they went supernova.  But given how diffuse the galaxy is, you wouldn't expect planets to contain so much Uranium.  I will be told that the galaxy is very old, so we have Uranium left over from eons of big stars going nova.  Yes, but the half-life of Uranium is about 4.5 billion years, which is about half the lifespan of a star like the Sun.  So while the Sun is alive, ¾ of the existing Uranium will break down.  So you see, Uranium doesn't persist to be recycled through several star-cycles.  We can't get that sort of buildup over time.  Plus, since the Earth is said to be exactly that old, it would have originally had twice as much Uranium as now, doubling our problem.  

This indicates to me that larger elements like Uranium may be created continuously in the galactic core, being ejected in large quantities into the galaxy from its center.  Either that, or celestial bodies— even small ones like the Earth—must have some way of attracting Uranium.  Since I have shown that all celestial bodies recycle the charge field, it may be that large elements are channeled very strongly to celestial bodies on the ambient charge field, being deposited constantly as the charge moves through the bodies from their poles.

Addendum February 14, 2017.  A reader has sent in some corroborating research on this, which you can see here http://mileswmathis.com/nro.pdf.  It also includes further brief commentary by me.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 560
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:42 am

Very interesting, Airman. You all need to study up on Polonium radiohalos. Many or most such halos in rock are parentless, meaning the polonium was likely a decay product in molten material which soon solidified, like lava. Only I think uranium and polonium are mainly found in granite. I need to check some day to see if that's correct. The Earth (like the Sun) is likely no more than 380 million years old, as Charles Chandler found at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943

And the uranium was likely formed electrically a few thousand years ago as Walter Brown theorized at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html

I don't accept Brown's hydroplate theory, but what happened instead was a large asteroid hit the former supercontinent north of what is now Madagascar and broke up the supercontinent and caused the new continents to move apart to near their present locations in a very short time span as explained at http://NewGeology.us

Uranium was formed electrically on the undersides of the sliding continents. Instead of the oceanic crust acting as a conveyor belt transporting the continents, the conveyor belt didn't move, but the continents slid across it. Extreme electrical arcing occurred where the bottoms of the moving continents contacted the mantle and that produced fusion of uranium etc. Granite from the bottom was extruded up through the continent's crust into the Rocky Mountains etc, carrying along the uranium, parentless polonium etc.

Brown showed that radioactive elements decay many times faster when highly ionized than when neutral.

That's just my working hypothesis after reading Brown recently and a few other things.

LloydK

Posts : 385
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:48 pm

.
Quoting http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943
Light Curves © Charles Chandler
If main sequence stars cool with time, going from bright blue to dim red, we should be able to use well-known principles…
Negative. I don’t agree with CC’s premise. Stars do not “cool with time”. Stars output's vary primarily as some function of its position within the galactic charge and matter distributions.

Another close following quote
the primary energy source for the Sun was found to be the kinetic energy developed by the imploding dusty plasma
Again, I completely disagree. Miles has shown that ‘imploding dusty plasma’ is absurd.

I cannot agree with CC's 380 million year estimation.

I'll admit that CC is expert in building a mainstream model using mainstream assumptions.  

As I’ve said somewhere, I like the expanding Earth theory - the earth’s radius has doubled in the last 6 million years. Earth, however old it actually is, was originally spit out from the Sun - or Saturn or whichever sun it was at the time. All this is entirely reasonable given Miles’ unified charge field and gravity. Not so, however, when using Mainstream ideas.

A) Uranium formed by supernovas and blasted throughout the universe before Earth was created(?),

B) Uranium formed by galactic process, distributed as charged matter streams, finding their way to Earth(?).

I'll pick B.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 560
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum