Proposal: Electricity Animation

Page 7 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 LongtimeAirman on Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:43 pm

.
Jared, I like your alpha https://vimeo.com/157484485. Are you satisfied?

Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 616
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:06 pm

Jared, that's a nice animation or simulation, but can you explain where forces are holding the nucleons together? And how would two electrons change the alpha++ into a neutral helium atom?

Airman said: Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.

Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.


I can understand suction cups being able to hold several pounds of weight due to air pressure on the cups. Suction means higher pressure moving toward lower pressure. Higher air pressure pushes on lower pressure cups. (You can even measure the air pressure when the weight overcomes it.)

Photon channels might be at lower pressure, causing more photons from outside where there's ambient higher pressure to enter the channel.  As photons enter a proton, the pressure inside increases, so photons are forced out of it at the equator (or some out the other pole). Right?

I don't see where the suction is though between the ionized balloon and the wall. Normally, when electrons are removed from two objects, they repel each other, I'm told. Examples are given online: rubbing glass and silk or fur and rubber, transferring electrons from the former to the latter. Each pair then suction together, but the glass and fur repel, as do the silk and rubber. Isn't that correct? So if balloon protons meet wall protons, I think they'd repel. It looks like the balloon protons would share the wall electrons in order to get suction.

But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:20 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Jared, I like your alpha https://vimeo.com/157484485. Are you satisfied?

Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?
.

It's an older video I made before meeting you folks and it's a bit off. The neutrons channel through-charge from the protons, and I've shown them channeling equatorial charge. I'll make a new one soon, and hydrogen should be a piece of cake. I'm never satisfied with these demonstrations, because it's just an animation and not entirely physical just yet. Getting there.

Lloyd wrote:Jared, that's a nice animation or simulation, but can you explain where forces are holding the nucleons together? And how would two electrons change the alpha++ into a neutral helium atom?

Watch the video again. The charge streams hold the nucleus together via direct bombardment. It's not "forces", it's literally photons pushing the nucleons together and keeping them close. Mathis had a little criticism for me (explained above) but it represents nuclear theory better than anything in the mainstream has, even so. It also leads us to the fission/uranium problem quite nicely.

The electrons are also in the video, just very tiny at the N and S poles, being driven there by charge. They are in the blue charge streams. So here I am showing the standard, "neutral" helium atom.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Cr6 on Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:59 pm

LloydK wrote:Jared, that's a nice animation or simulation, but can you explain where forces are holding the nucleons together? And how would two electrons change the alpha++ into a neutral helium atom?

Airman said: Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.

Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.


I can understand suction cups being able to hold several pounds of weight due to air pressure on the cups. Suction means higher pressure moving toward lower pressure. Higher air pressure pushes on lower pressure cups. (You can even measure the air pressure when the weight overcomes it.)

Photon channels might be at lower pressure, causing more photons from outside where there's ambient higher pressure to enter the channel.  As photons enter a proton, the pressure inside increases, so photons are forced out of it at the equator (or some out the other pole). Right?

I don't see where the suction is though between the ionized balloon and the wall. Normally, when electrons are removed from two objects, they repel each other, I'm told. Examples are given online: rubbing glass and silk or fur and rubber, transferring electrons from the former to the latter. Each pair then suction together, but the glass and fur repel, as do the silk and rubber. Isn't that correct? So if balloon protons meet wall protons, I think they'd repel. It looks like the balloon protons would share the wall electrons in order to get suction.

But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?

That's actually not exactly correct Loyd. Remember this old link...I think you even commented on it here and there. CC didn't entertain it that much. The question to ask is why does Vitamin E stop electric charge in terms of the charge field?:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15057

Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation

...
Grzybowski's new study also provides new puzzles for scientists to investigate. While the new study overturns some older beliefs about static electricity, it doesn't fully explain how the phenomenon works. "It's a great day when you come to the office and somebody shows you that your beliefs are wrong," UCLA physicist Seth Putterman says.

Putterman says one thing that remains unexplained after this new study—and surprises him—is that the geometry of the charge pattern (that map of the different charges) doesn't change significantly as the two statically charged object move together and the charge decreases. To him, this implies that ions that move around easily on an object's surface are not causing static electricity. If they were, they should change the charging pattern that Grzybowski's team saw on the surface, he says. "To me this means you have extra electrons trapped deep inside the material causing the [static electricity], and they can't go walking around the surface as would ions," he says. That's because the electrons are bound up inside the material.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 689
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:48 am

Lloyd wrote:But, if that's correct, I'm still not clear on where the suction is. How about you?

To put it another way, Lloyd, the rubbed balloon would have an area of LESS repulsion, when in contact with the wall. The rest of the balloon would feel its normal repulsion, from all things, including the air around it. So it's much like a magnetic effect, in that the attraction is (like all attractions, even to women) simply a phenomenon of less repulsion. It's not like a magnetic effect in the sense of spins however, it's just a similar principle.

But that's how all attractions are explained, mechanically, using the charge field. Once primed by the rubbing, the balloon is not repelling the wall as much as an unprimed balloon. It's the same with electron/proton attractions - they only appear to attract, but really they're just repelling each other less, relative to other particles. If a proton repels another proton at 1:1, a proton repels an electron at 1:1/1821, due to the radius difference. Since a proton and a neutron are the same radius, the neutron appears neutral to the proton. They repel each other (generally) as much as a proton-to-proton or a neutron-to-neutron would.

Hope that helps a little. I can make a video if necessary.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:09 am

Okay, Jared, I'll try to see the vimeo tomorrow. But I don't know how to think of motions without forces involved. Pressure is force per area.

Cr6 (Carsick?), vitamin E stops static electricity? Can you diagram it and show how? The following from the thread is interesting.

He then used Kelvin probe microscopy to measure molecular charges in the material. With this technique, a scientist runs a tiny probe over the microscopic hills and valleys of surfaces, and the probe vibrates differently over differently charged regions, creating a map of the charges. That's how Grzybowski saw that each material had a random patchwork of positive and negative charges, and neither was uniformly charged. In addition, his tests showed that PDMS and Teflon exchange silicon and fluorine atoms upon contact, a more significant transfer of material than ever previously shown.

... Putterman says one thing that remains unexplained after this new study—and surprises him—is that the geometry of the charge pattern (that map of the different charges) doesn't change significantly as the two statically charged object move together and the charge decreases. To him, this implies that ions that move around easily on an object's surface are not causing static electricity. If they were, they should change the charging pattern that Grzybowski's team saw on the surface, he says. "To me this means you have extra electrons trapped deep inside the material causing the [static electricity], and they can't go walking around the surface as would ions," he says. That's because the electrons are bound up inside the material.


So do we rub electrons off of balloons, or atoms?

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:11 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:Can you stack alphas? Any interest in diatomic hydrogen?

Here's my video on Hydrogen, so far. It may need some tweaking, take a look and let me know what you folks think?

https://vimeo.com/206241864


Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:32 pm

Jared Magneson wrote:To put it another way, Lloyd, the rubbed balloon would have an area of LESS repulsion, when in contact with the wall. The rest of the balloon would feel its normal repulsion, from all things, including the air around it. So it's much like a magnetic effect, in that the attraction is (like all attractions, even to women) simply a phenomenon of less repulsion. It's not like a magnetic effect in the sense of spins however, it's just a similar principle.

But that's how all attractions are explained, mechanically, using the charge field. Once primed by the rubbing, the balloon is not repelling the wall as much as an unprimed balloon. It's the same with electron/proton attractions - they only appear to attract, but really they're just repelling each other less, relative to other particles. If a proton repels another proton at 1:1, a proton repels an electron at 1:1/1821, due to the radius difference. Since a proton and a neutron are the same radius, the neutron appears neutral to the proton. They repel each other (generally) as much as a proton-to-proton or a neutron-to-neutron would.

I was thinking of this as something like a magnetic effect too, but slightly differently. The rubbing causes the surface layer(s) to break up a bit and therefore they emit more charge than normal (sort of like removing the oxidized layer on a metal which exposes the underlying raw atoms). Both surfaces can be doing this (but not necessarily at the same rate) and as you bring them together they clear out the ambient field, just like close magnets for that final snap, which holds them together. It is the removal of the ambient field that causes the increased net force from all other directions, so it is more of a gravitational effect than a magnetic one. But I haven't given it a lot of thought as I think it is too far above the level I am trying to understand. If we don't have a solid understanding of the quantum world, then we can't hope to have much understanding at the macro level. I wasn't going to comment on this stuff because of that but I was glad to see you come close to what I was thinking so I thought I would chime in.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
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 Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:51 pm

J & N, in my previous post, did yous notice this statement that Cr6 referenced on TB?  "his tests showed that PDMS and Teflon exchange silicon and fluorine atoms upon contact, a more significant transfer of material than ever previously shown."

So I was asking if rubbing a balloon might remove whole atoms as well. If so, maybe the issue is too complex, as N may have suggested. That's not to say that J's and A's ideas above are off.

As I asked in the other thread, why do you want to simulate a Hydrogen atom containing a neutron?

Oh, I also meant to post the following, which I had saved to a file a couple years ago.

IONIZATION & PROTON POLES
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
-The south pole Chromium electron is more than twice as bound in the ion as in the atom.
-The north electron was blocking 21.8% of the charge.
-The electron has a magnetic moment 658 times larger than that of the proton.
-The electron would be capable of blocking 36.1% (658/1821) of the charge coming in, if the electron were no distance from the pole.
-From the difference between 36.1% and 21.8%, it must be about 1.5 electron radii away [.36x = .218. x ˜ 1.5] the radius of the eddy.
-This tells us why elements ionize before bonding, as Chromium can create a bond over 20% stronger by kicking that electron out of the eddy.
-What causes ionization before bonding is the other element nearby.
-When the two charge streams meet, the second charge stream blows that electron out of the hole before bonding.
-We can also blow the electron out of that hole when we introduce external charge via an electrical current or magnetic field.

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:16 pm

I have nothing against transferring atoms in this process. I think that is probably more likely when the materials are complex molecules rather than simpler ones or just straight atoms. That is the problem with these types of questions. You really need to look at the specific elements and molecules being used, there is no generic solution hence my statement about it being too complex. This also helps to explain why a certain material can be the positive with one material and the negative with another (using the mainstream terminology).

It's really hard not to think about these things when the questions are asked but I try to stick in the quantum world and build up from there. I want a solid foundation beneath me before I start to consider larger phenomenon. On the other hand, it can be a good test of what you understand at the smaller scales to see if you can extrapolate upwards. So it can be fun to think about but I try to remember to be careful in what I find and not put too much confidence in it.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:08 pm

.
Lloyd, Please forgive me for repeating myself, I'm addressing your questions.

Electrons swept aside were previously blocking the nuclei’s photon channel input locations (i.e. south pole). Those are the points that the electrons always drift to. Extra electrons may blanket the nuclei, but they are really of no consequence.

Electrons in those positions must recycle charge too. This may help explain how electrons might orbit, block, or otherwise effect the charge stream entering the nuclei.

You provided sufficient force to overcome wall/balloon proton/proton resistance when you pressed the balloon against the wall, creating direct wall to balloon, proton to proton bonds.

We are comparing and sometimes confusing several close concepts, charge field: channels, streams, bonds, and recycling.

I’m sorry to have thought up the suction cup analogy, I was wrong.
A better analogy – The wind. Here's another quote from
Diatomic Hydrogen  http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf
The protons and electrons recycle these charge photons, taking them in at their poles and emitting them (most heavily) at their equators. It is this recycling that creates the potentials in the field, by creating directions and variable densities. The analogy is wind, which creates field potentials in the same way

Wind pressure is far less severe compared to suction cups. Now we can understand how our structure is permeable to photon traffic without worrying about structure integrity.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 616
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sat Mar 04, 2017 2:53 pm

I don't know if I'll understand until it's diagrammed fully somehow.

There are 9 static electricity experiments shown on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y

Some look like wind, and others look like suction. Is there suction and wind in each case, but just not showing one or the other? How does suction/attraction work?

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:54 pm

LloydK wrote:There are 9 static electricity experiments shown on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y

Some look like wind, and others look like suction. Is there suction and wind in each case, but just not showing one or the other? How does suction/attraction work?

None of these are examples of static electricity. They are all examples of magnetism.

Mathis wrote:It is known that a magnet's strength can be increased or induced by an electric field. This is called an electromagnet. My critic will ask how my situation above could be increased. Haven't I just turned off the spin of the photons, maximizing the solo-gravity field? If it is maximized, how can the attraction be increased even further? This is not hard to answer, either, since my situation above didn't really maximize much of anything. The only thing I maximized was the coherence, so that the forward torques would be as near parallel as possible. But there are many other factors that can be “maximized” beyond that. For example, in the gap between objects, we will always have a large amount of cross traffic, caused by rogue photons and other quanta. Even if we assume that the charge field has an average direction caused by the masses in the area, that will always just be an average. In reality, we always have a large amount of cross traffic, and that must diminish the efficiency of the charge repulsion between the objects.

In fact, that is what causes the “snap” when magnets come together. Unlike gravity, the force of magnetism has a big flux right at the end. For instance, if you lift your foot off the ground, you do not feel a big tug just as you break contact, and a much lesser tug at 2 inches. No, gravity is a constant in that situation, and this is because solo-gravity is not a particle field. It is a real acceleration, not a field of bombardment. Particles in the gap can't affect it. But magnets have a strong bond at contact, and a much weaker attraction as soon as contact is broken. One cause of this is that as soon as contact is broken, the cross-traffic field rushes back in, greatly diminishing the efficiency of the torque meetings. Rogue photons come in from both sides and stir things up. No matter how coherent our fields emitted from the two magnets may be, the gap is not just filled by that emission. It is filled by emission from everywhere. So even a coherent emitted field will be much less than perfectly efficient. But when the magnets actually touch, this cross-traffic is very greatly decreased, all at once. The molecules exclude them. Since even solid structures are very porous, we will still have photon cross traffic inside the magnet, but we will have much less cross traffic than in the gap. That is what causes the snap.

http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

That paper explains the "attraction" pretty well. It's just a field of less repulsion, so the objects automatically move in that direction as it's the path of least resistance. The objects are already being pushed from all directions (to one degree or another) by ambient charge, so by polarizing or "cohering" one side relative to another surface, the object is pushed into the surface. The balloon is pushed into the wall, not pulled. It's the same with all other attractions.

In protons, the charge isn't "attracted" to the poles, but since it's repelled more in all other areas (especially at the equator), we have a greater potential for incoming charge photons to enter at the poles. It's simply a path of less repulsion than the other available paths, so to us it might appear as an attraction.

It's kind of like being in a room full of ugly women. One might stand out as being less ugly, so you're automatically going to be more attracted to her. It doesn't make her a very attractive person necessarily, she simply doesn't make you as nauseous as the others.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:00 am

Thanks for the explanation, Jared. Magnetism seems plausible, but did you notice the two soap bubbles on the table? They appeared to me to be suctioned, not pushed from behind. The fronts of the bubbles were distorted toward the pipe between them as they moved across the flat surface on the table.

Do you not see the suction effect there? Airman's earlier explanation of suction cups seems to be approximately correct. Suctioning is reducing pressure in an area, so higher pressure around it moves things toward the lower pressure. The inside of each bubble had higher pressure air or photons, causing the front of the bubble to distort toward the low pressure pipe first, then the rest of the bubble was pulled and pushed along behind it.

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:43 am

All attractions are apparent attractions only, though. They APPEAR to be "suctioned". But what's really happening is that the propensity or tendency for them to hold their initial shape (gravity arrayed against charge) is being lessened in that one direction. So the incoming ambient charge is pressing less on them as their proximity to the charged, magnetized wand increases. It's feeling less pressure at those points because of this proximity, so the air inside the bubble is moving towards the wand because it's more free to move in that direction than in any other, especially down.

To put it another way, the wand is decreasing the incoming charge photons relative to the bubbles as it gets near by blocking them from that direction. The air inside the bubbles is more free to move that direction, since in all other directions it is feeling more pressure. Down, we have gravity. Up, we have the Earth's charge. From all other angles in the half-sphere we have SOME charge, but from the angle towards the polarized wand we have less charge. The ambient charge it would normally feel is being pushed out of the way by the magnetic effect of the wand.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:09 am

Now all that's left to explain is "the magnetic effect of the wand". Did Miles explain that already? I'll check the link above.

What you described is close to what's understood about suction. Everyone realizes suction is a push of higher pressure toward lower pressure.

Steven Rado referred to positive and negative charges as sources and sinks. Wind and suction seem to me to be useful words too since they're easy to understand.

PS, have you attempted yet to simulate magnetism?

I just noticed this paragraph in the Magnet paper that seems to contradict the idea that the static electricity experiments involve magnetism: normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.

Another confusing issue for me is, if magnetic attraction is due to canceling photon spins to allow gravitation to do the attracting, then, if a magnet were suspended above another magnet with opposite poles facing each other, it seems that the lower magnet should fall, due to gravity, instead of rise and stick to the suspended magnet. So I'm thinking that suction might be a better explanation than canceling spins, although I don't know offhand how low pressure for suction could be produced. If someone can simulate magnetism with photon spins, then I might understand how that would work. For now, I'll think about how low pressure suction might be produced in static electricity and magnets.

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:18 pm

LloydK wrote:I just noticed this paragraph in the Magnet paper that seems to contradict the idea that the static electricity experiments involve magnetism: normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.

I wouldn't put too much weight into those quotes. Miles is talking about normal objects but that video did not contain normal objects. The PVC pipe was normal, but after rubbing it with the cloth, it is not normal anymore. Rubbing it causes a coherence in the pipes charge field, How, I don't know as that would require a study of the molecular make up of PVC and the cloth. The effects seen are the result of the increased and coherent charge flow from the pipe.

I thought the really interesting one was the water. Just before the clip changes to another, you see that the water curled right around and some droplets were moving back towards the pipe. That shows an initial repulsion followed by an attraction. I saw that as a magnetic effect caused by charge photons that were spinning up on the side closest to the water, furthest from the pipe (of each photon). That would make the spin axis of each charge photon parallel to the pipe as it exits it. If we use the right-hand-rule, then the electric field in the pipe was moving from the end back towards the holders hand causing a magnetic field that curls up and around that vector (on the side that the water was on relative to the pipe).

Another interesting one was the aluminium foil under the glass sheet. You could see how the foil was blocking more and less charge in various areas. Still, there are some things that I can't explain right now, such as the levitation of those little balls. Why do they only levitate once the glass is in place? Is it an increased, or maybe a more coherent, charge flow? Is it the glass or the foil or both that cause it? Does it require that the foil be scrunched up in places? If so, then it could be related to charge density and how that is affected by the glass.

LloydK wrote:Another confusing issue for me is, if magnetic attraction is due to canceling photon spins to allow gravitation to do the attracting, then, if a magnet were suspended above another magnet with opposite poles facing each other, it seems that the lower magnet should fall, due to gravity, instead of rise and stick to the suspended magnet. So I'm thinking that suction might be a better explanation than canceling spins, although I don't know offhand how low pressure for suction could be produced. If someone can simulate magnetism with photon spins, then I might understand how that would work. For now, I'll think about how low pressure suction might be produced in static electricity and magnets.

Magnetism is not about gravity. Only the final quick snapping of magnets as they come together is explained by gravity through the clearing of the ambient field. The rest of magnetism is explained through the charge photon motion, namely, its spin. You also have to be careful who's gravity you are talking about. When gravity is used in a magnetic context, it is the gravity of the magnets themselves, not the earth.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
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 Mar 05, 2017 9:16 pm

Unrelated, but I "fixed" my Hydrogen video and tweaked it a bit to show its charge streams (sans neutron). Take a look and let me know which one is better?

New one:
https://vimeo.com/207040350

Previous one:
https://vimeo.com/206370190

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:01 pm

Why does the charge (yellow) rotate about the proton? On a closer look I noticed that the proton itself is rotating and the charge is rotating with it. That is not how charge emission works (although I have done the same thing in AV). Even if the proton rotates, which we don't need it to since it is already built of spin and is implied inside of the yellow sphere, the charge would not rotate with it. Once the charge photon is moving away from the proton (immediately after the collision) then it is no longer tied to it and will not rotate with it.

If we looked at one single point on the surface of the proton and watched the charge that emerged from that location, then each charge photon would still travel straight out from that point, but the point would move around before emitting the next photon so the next photon will be in a different position when it is emitted. If we looked at all of the photons, then they would describe a spiral from the first emitted photon back to the proton surface.

Even though I know that, I still haven't implemented it in AV like that because to do so I need to make charge a thing in its own right and that will make things very difficult in AV. But you should be able to separate the charge from the proton fairly easily, I imagine.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
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 Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:10 am

Yeah, I have the entire group keyframed to rotate at a certain point. But mostly just because it looked cool. It's not in my other video, and is easily keyed off. But you're right that the magnetic effect wouldn't work like that - the photons have spin but not tied to the proton's, once released. Should I spin the proton/electon the entire time, but not the charge emission?

Good call, by the way. Good looking out.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:45 am

Unfortunately, you can't show the spin of the charge photon with this approach because each photon is only a point. That can only show location and you need it that way for performance. The alternative is to have each charge photon as its own sphere with a surface texture that allows you to see its rotation. You can't use shaders to accomplish that though, so you lose all of the performance.

I would suggest a conceptual video, like my Proton Charge Viewer, rather than attempting to be realistic. In that app, the charge vectors are not meant to be literal, but are an indication that charge moves out. Each charge photon has its own spin, shown by its axis but I should change that to use a texture. The vector and the spin show the electric and magnetic properties of charge. I'm sure you can do better with Maya.

With respect to spinning the particle, I'm not sure. It is kind of deceptive in that the particle does not spin that way but I don't think it really matters. At least if it is rotating, then it is a better indication that spin is happening in that area.

In AV the charge is tied to the proton, sometimes the proton stack, and while I don't rotate these things, they can move around if the carousel level or the north and south arms are spinning and the charge has the same motion as the particle they come from. It would be really cool if it wasn't, though. To be able to see the charge density change as a result of that motion would be good. I will have to look into that.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
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 Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:06 am

That is actually really cool, Nevyn. I don't think I've seen that one yet. And I can pretty easily implement something similar in my photon particles via instancing, which takes no performance hit (no more memory to instance many than to do just one). I'll work on it. Might just be a sphere with a pole-cylinder or equator-cylinder as a marker, but it might be helpful.

And of course you're correct. The proton isn't just a big yellow or red sphere. I'd really like to get up to the proton level with my other stacked spin stacking setup and import that into my nuclear one, but I'm still a bit confused as to what spin level the proton is right now. I thought it was three spins above the electron in motion, but our recent conversations have me a bit lost on that front.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:28 pm

Jared, the grids on the proton and electron seem to help.

Is the electron to scale?

Miles said the electron blocks some of the photon stream. Did he say 30-some%? Has he explained why the electron doesn't get sucked right into the proton? He also said the electron orbits the axis, like a ball on water that's going down a drain, I think. Is it worth showing the electron circling around the axis? I wonder if the photons would tend to spiral into the proton, the same way water spirals down a drain.

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:40 pm

I made an attempt to make charge emission (only equatorial emission at this point and probably at all) be an absolute entity rather than tied to the position of the particle emitting it. I have the shader mostly written, but untested at this point as I need to change AV a little bit to accommodate the charge being global rather than local to the particle.

It was easier than I thought but there will be a performance hit, but I think I have minimized it and I think I can do even better with a few more changes. Basically, I am trying to limit the amount of data that needs to be sent to the GPU for these calculations and also the amount of data that needs to be updated per frame. I am currently updating, and sending, a 4x4 matrix per charge photon but the photons are in groups of X size and each group needs the same transform matrix so I should be able to reduce that to 1 matrix per group.

I can't wait to see what this looks like!
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
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 Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:33 am

Nevyn, what GPUs are you working with currently? It's a bit of a tech question, but for your reference I'm running some older hardware: a GTX 750Ti for my TV, a GTX 660 for my main rig, and a 550Ti and 460 for my two Piledrivers. Nothing fancy here. But so far, your applications run really solid on my computers. Keep doing what you're doing; it's terribly helpful. I just wish I could dig in more myself, but it's been quite a struggled with Maya on my end and I'm not far enough along in coding to make that work for us yet.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 7 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