Proposal: Electricity Animation

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:32 am

My system has a R9 280X. Nothing too fancy but enough to do what I need. I have been thinking about upgrading when the Vega comes out. Probably won't be able to afford a full rebuild to get a Ryzen to go with it, but the thought is planted in my head. I really like the sound of those Vega cards. Hardware geometry occlusion sounds really good to someone that was about to implement software geometry occlusion!

I complement that with my work laptop that only has some little NVideo card in it. Not even sure what it is, to be honest, but it runs about 3 to 10 times slower than mine. But that is good because it gives me an idea of how my stuff works on a low-end graphics system. The CPU is a good i7 though, and my own system is only an i5 and that can help sometimes on the laptop.
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 Nevyn on Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:02 pm

Programming takes a little while to get your head around. Once you understand the basics of control structures (if, while, for loops, etc), data structures, the syntax of the language you are using and the things you can use in that language, it becomes easier. I think you will find that there is a steep initial learning curve but once you have that down, the rest is just doing what you do in the UI, but in code. At that point, everything will accelerate because you already know what it is you need to do and just need to figure out how to do that in the language.

Another thing to be aware of, especially in scripting languages, is the context of your code. When will it be run. What data will it have access to. What does it have to generate as output. When I started to learn how to write shaders, I had to find out all of these things. A lot of trial and error but once I understand the context, I could see how to do what I wanted. But I have over 2 decades of programming experience in many different languages and environments and that helps a lot. Especially in an industry that is in love with acronyms. Understanding the language used can be a nightmare in itself, and I don't mean the programming language but the concepts and the way programmers talk about things.

I have the opposite problem to you. I know how I would do something in code, because I pretty much think in code, but when I try to use a tool like Blender, the UI gets in my way and I don't know how to do it. When I figure out how the UI wants me to do it, I usually end up thinking that it is so much harder than doing it in the code. It can be difficult to keep doing things the hard way when you know you could get it done much quicker another way, but if I just go back to coding it, then I don't learn what the tools could do better.
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 6:32 pm

Aye, I have only a little experience in code, BASIC and HTML, stuff like that. Maya's complexity isn't really helpful in this case, the learning curve is VERY steep for me and I'm making little progress. Which is partly why I've been doing a bit more animation lately - at least then I have something to show for it, and it helps to develop a visual look that will helpfully demonstrate these theories to layfolk and other physics junkies. I'm not giving up on hard-wiring the physics along with you on my end, just not letting Maya break my will and frustrate me too much. Smile

Your stuff is really quite impressive, especially on the OpenGL end of things and your use of the GPU. Really neat stuff for me!

Have you played with Universe Sandbox² at all? I highly recommend trying the demo, for everyone. It has the standard model flaws but it's still really cool and visually impressive. I vaguely wonder how difficult it would be to recode something like this, or Kerbal Space Program for example, to behave according to charge physics and actual Pi.

Check it out sometime, my friends:



http://universesandbox.com/

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 Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:25 pm

I've seen Universe Sandbox on Steam and thought about having a look at it, but the mainstream assumptions turned me away. I did buy Kerbal Space Program but haven't spent a lot of time in it.

I started building a solar system sandbox of my own with the hope of incorporating Miles physics into it but got sidetracked on making everything rotate according to standard physics (not using standard physics, just rotating things to match it). I tried to calculate things like the charge vectors just to show above a planet, as an arrow, but it didn't work out very well. I could probably do a better job now since I have a bit more experience in the math. The original version was written in Java3D but I did port it to ThreeJS to run in the browser but I didn't put it up on my site when I moved to Linode as it wasn't very good. You can read about it here: http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t126-simple-orbiter
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 Nevyn on Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:32 pm

I should just start with a simple 2-body scenario and work out the charge field and gravity vectors. I think I was trying to do too much too quick in the previous apps. Once that math is working, it becomes easier to build an entire solar system and more importantly, how to fit it together to work with that math.
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 Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:56 pm

.
Lloyd 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?
Thanks Lloyd, Nice video. Explaining them all is a tall order! If Miles were to describe them, we might all agree; until then, we clearly don’t. We’re free to speculate, consistent with the charge field and many of Miles’ examples.

9 Awesome Science Tricks Using Static Electricity!  My Only complaint: The table top material is not identified. On the Hover plate materials image (0:08-0:10) draw a horizontal line under the words “styrofoam plates”, where the line would intersect the table it looks like a sheet of material is covering the table, it doesn’t appear to be either glass or Plexiglas since there are no clear reflections. Maybe it’s a vinyl. Polycarbonate sheets are used in Bubble trouble and Dancing balls.

The pvc pipe is central in all but the Hover plate and Dancing balls displays, so I’ll address it first.

One can reduce a nuclei’s charge emission by blocking the nuclei’s charge intake. It follows that one can increase emission by unblocking intake. It turns out that that is a correct statement, because electrons are present, both free and blocking nuclei’s charge intakes. As I’ve previously indicated, I believe rubbing the pvc pipe with cloth removes electrons from charge intake positions on the pipe’s surface. The pipe is thereby ionized. I imagine there are many individual charge streams, each originating at separate surface protons. Charge streams can be positive or negative, sometimes reinforcing, adding to the coherency of these individual charge streams. I don’t know the molecular structure; I don’t assume all charge streams align all neat and tidy, matched and radially aligned. Electrostatically, I expect the surface would appear to be a random yet fractal-like collection of positive or negative charge areas. If so, one cannot say the pipe’s entire emitted field is magnetic.

We have a high number of high strength coherent photons being emitted by the pipe’s surface. The pipe will remain “charged” until motion subsides and sufficient time has elapsed to allow electrons to drift in between those charge currents and gas atoms; returning to the pipe surface and joining recycling currents, sometimes partially blocking large photon current intake locations, and so de-ionize the pipe.

While the pipe is “statically charged”, many of the pipe’s surface molecules are emitting positive or negative photon flows at full volume. Moving the pipe about, sweeps those currents across air (atoms molecules) and other nearby proton matter, dislodging their loosely held electrons, and ionizing them too. Free electrons are swept away. These overlapping charge fields are at measurably higher electrostatic energy levels. They were created by the removal of both free and loosely bound electrons, so we begin at an electron deficiency. Also, many nuclei are operating at higher output, which means that their intake photons are at a lower density, they must be fed at a higher rate, an increased current flow inward, a higher inward charge pressure differential to match the higher coherent emissions. I believe the suction/wind analogies correspond to these charge and electron pressure differentials.  

1. 0:08 Hover plate. Styrofoam plates and cloths. Large plate upside down on a tabletop. The smaller plate is rubbed with cloth: The smaller plate will not sit on the larger, but will fall away to the side instead. If a hand is held above the plates, the small plate looks more horizontally stable, raising to a greater height, appearing to be attracted to, and then sticking to her hand. When gently shaken, the plate did not break free, or loose, from her hand.

The small plate is ionized, but it’s too small to completely ionize the larger plate. This results in an electrostatic potential difference between the plates, with the resulting net recycling charge flow directed upward toward the smaller plate. This charge current flow upward is supplemented by the Earth’s own upward charge emission. The small plate is emitting coherent streams downward (ignoring the top of the plate), and coherent streams are also emitted upwards by the larger plate which also prevent the smaller plate from resting on the larger one.
Placing a hand above both plates changes the charge flows slightly. If clean and dry, the hand’s skin over the small plate is ionized, though with far less coherent emissions, and far less repulsion to the small plate. Given that all other charge flows are upward, the small plate’s upward emissions are too small to prevent contact with the hand, making it appear the small plate is attracted to the hand.

2. 0:36 Can can go. Aluminum can, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. After rubbing the pipe with cloth, the pipe can lead the can back and forth on the table through an apparent attraction. No repulsion is shown.

Sweeping the charged pvc pipe about the can removes many of the can’s, (and air’s) loosely bound electrons. There is a resulting electron deficiency between the charged pipe and the can. At the same time, the can blocks a small portion of the pipe’s emitted field. The surrounding charge field is also greater on the far side of the can. The result is a higher number of electron and surrounding charge field collisions with the far side of the can. This force, the result of uneven electron and charge field collisions, between near and far sides of the can (with respect to the pipe’s charge field), causes the can to roll toward the charged pipe.
 
3. 0:56 Stick around. Tape, match, thread, glass jar, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. Suspend matchstick from interior of upside down glass jar. After rubbing the pipe with cloth, the matchstick can affected by the pvc moving outside the jar. The matchstick is appears to either repel or attract the matchstick. The matchstick may rat-a-tat against the glass; or it may make a single contact and remain in contact with the glass and even if the pipe is removed. the stick may remain in contact for several seconds before dropping to normal suspension.

The glass jar is not a barrier to photons or electrons, only air . The stick is far smaller than an aluminum can, it stick can react far more readily to collisions from random electrons or positive or negative photon flows, without seeming to favor attraction or repulsion. Occasionally the match stick will bump against the glass jar and remain due to the creation of a small number of, stick-to-glass, proton/proton bonds.
   
4. 1:43 Bubble trouble. Polycarbonate sheet, a straw, bubble solution, pvc rigid pipe and cloth. Blow bubbles on the table and lead the bubbles about the wet surface with the cloth rubbed pvc pipe. Bubbles distort and are attracted to the pipe, too close and the bubbles pop.

I believe this electrostatic display can be described along the same lines as Can can go – an apparent attraction due to the relative electron deficiency between bubble and pipe; electrons are hitting the far side of the bubble far more than from the pipe side.  And increased recycling charge flow toward the charged pvc pipe. The polysheet is just a wet surface. It’s noteworthy that the pipe’s high energy coherent emission streams do not break the bubble’s surface sooner, assuming of course that it ultimately does, if the bubble gets too close. There must be a scant supply of removable electrons in water or else the bubble would break sooner. I could see the backside horizontal surface of the bubble moving slowest toward the pipe. The bubble is pushed to the pipe, it is also deformed, which may indicate 1/r, or 1/r^2. The camera, or viewing axis is ideally along a bisector line. The pipe would also be best placed along that line - or the display may be improved without the camera being in the way.

5. 2:19 Dancing balls. Blocks, aluminum foil, polycarbonate sheet, styrofoam balls, paper towel, paper tray and cloth. Wrap many tiny Styrofoam balls with aluminum, of course in some places there is a single layer of foil, in other places there could be several folded layers. Place a sheet of aluminum foil on a paper tray. Place blocks in the corners, wipe sheet with cloth then place sheet onto the blocks (over the foil). Place aluminum covered balls on or under the poly sheet.

This was my favorite display. When they all jumped up and moved about on the bottom-side of the transparent sheet, I heard applause.

The transparent sheet is ionized and placed on the blocks. The sheet emits high energy coherent streams, presumably vertically downward (we can ignore any upward emissions). The sheet has sufficient charge mass to easily ionize the other materials below it. The foil covered paper tray is ionized least, yet it provides vertical emissions upward to help suspend the aluminum clad styrofoam balls. Much of the sheet’s recycling charge enters the sheet from below, and so it is also an upward force against the balls. The Earth’s charge field then adds a third upward push. These forces are opposed by 1) the balls’ gravity, also 2) downward directed sheet repulsion against the balls. I suppose the downward directed repulsion is reduced by the fact that direct contact with the balls minimized their electrostatic difference, the balls and sheet no longer repel. When disturbed, the balls have sufficient coherent emissions to easily interact with each other, adding to the action.

A finger moving above the sheet has ionized skin with a reduced number coherent emissions. The finger is far less efficient compared to the charged pipe, yet the ionized finger is sufficient to mess with a bunch of suspended aluminum clad styrofoam balls. The ball is pushed about by coherent emissions at high initial speeds, but passing through adjacent channels can stop the motion just as quickly. When the balls are placed on the topside of the sheet they have even more energy to move about, which is probably why she showed just one ball in that position.

6. 3:39 Water bender. Cloth rubbed pvc pipe seems to attract a small water flow.

The charged pipe begins to radiate the water as soon as it exits the faucet. There is no apparent repulsive force, direct emissions from the charged pipe may have little to no effect. Based on Bubble trouble, I don’t believe we can ionize water. Instead, like the Can can go, and Bubble trouble examples, inward directed charge flows toward the pipe push the far side of the water toward the charged pipe. When gravity and water viscosity finally have their way, the stream quickly turns downward; note that smaller droplets can be observed to continue further along their previous track.

7. 3:47 Balloon fight. Thread, pvc rigid pipe, cloth string and balloons. A cloth rubbed pvc pipe can repel small balloons suspended from the ceiling, divert them to one side or another.

This example is the opposite of Can can go, and Bubble trouble. We have no apparent attraction, just repulsion. Why do the balloons stop before approaching the pipe too closely? I believe the vinyl surface of the balloons ensures that there will always be an electrostatic potential difference between the pipe and balloons. This ensures that there will always be strong mutual emission repulsion, until things d-ionize.
 
8. 4:12 Electroscope. Steel wire, straw, aluminum, glass jar with cork cover, pvc rigid pipe, and cloth balloons. Suspend foil on wire in jar, the wire passes through a straw and loops at the top. The foils squares will react to the charged pvc.

The two tiny suspended foil leaves (along with the rest of the apparatus) are ionized by the charged pipe. The two leaves probably maintain a small electrostatic potential difference, their mutual coherent emissions cause the leaves spread apart. As everything deionizes, the leaves again return to their vertical positions, no longer interacting with one another.

9. 5:14 Wingardium leviosa. Various plastic bags, pvc rigid pipe, and cloth.  The rubbed pvc can prevent a plastic sheet from falling.

The pipe ionizes the plastic similarly to the ballons in Balloon fight. There will always be an electrostatic potential difference between the pipe and ‘floating’ plastic. This is strictly a display of mutual emission repulsion from the charged pipe and plastic.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 616
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:20 pm

Jared Magneson wrote: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.

Yes, this is a problem at the moment and we do need to figure it out, but we can take some short-cuts in the animations by recognizing the differences between spin levels and the forms they take. By playing with SpinSim, you can see what form the top spin level takes as you add more spin levels beneath it. It turns out that anything above the bottom spin levels (A, X, Y, Z), looks the same. That is, having spin levels A, (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z) looks the same, with slight differences, to A, (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z) which looks the same as A, (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z). The inner spins are so small compared to the outer spin, that they don't make much difference and the more spin levels you add the smaller the first levels become.

This means that we can animate a spin with 7 levels no matter the particle we are trying to create. There are differences between protons and neutrons and the same differences between electrons and nectrons, but we can deal with that because the differences are in the top 3 spin levels. These differences are determined by the relationship between the highest X spin and the highest Z spin. If they are the same spin direction (+ve or -ve) then they create one particle (I can't remember which way around they are at the moment), let's say that is a proton or electron, but if they are different signs then they create the other type of particle.

So all we need to worry about is the initial size of the BPhoton used to create the spins. That is, the real BPhoton is a certain size, let's just say it is 1 for simplicity, and that will create realistic spins and we can add as many levels as we need to reach whatever particle we want to create, let's call the number of spin levels N. But we can also use a BPhoton that has a radius of 8 which will look roughly the same as the previous particle but we only need N-3 spin levels. Use a BPhoton radius of 64 and we only need N-6 levels. Essentially, we are saying that the inner spins are fairly inconsequential, so we just represent them with a BPhoton of the correct size.

This is also great for performance. We don't need to calculate an arbitrary number of spin levels, we just need to calculate 7. We still need to know the differences in size of the various particles though, but we can assume the 3 or 4 spin level difference Miles states (depending on if you use higher axial spins) and work from there. In doing that, we might find that we stumble across the answer we want.

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 Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:41 am

That's brilliant. I hadn't realized you'd gotten so far, and it sure will take a load off the nDynamics I've been using for rigid body particles. A huge difference. At worst, I'd really only have to instance 7 spinners, instead of two for each stack, multiplying up through the electron and proton level. For the sake of animation it would be just dandy!

Nevyn wrote:We still need to know the differences in size of the various particles though, but we can assume the 3 or 4 spin level difference Miles states (depending on if you use higher axial spins) and work from there. In doing that, we might find that we stumble across the answer we want.

I can kinda see how the additional axial spin would add momentum or "mass", if it's adding yet another vector/velocity. But I can't see how axial spins would increase the radius. They don't on the first B-photon axial spin. So I think we discount those for radius, but count them for mass and energy?

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 Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:26 am

I discount them completely and only mention them for completeness since my opinion differs from Miles. The very first axial spin adds to mass and energy and if you accept higher axial spins then they will also add to mass and energy.

Which is actually interesting because they add mass in my theory of spin velocity as mass but they don't add mass if it is based on size, like how Miles has used the radius to explain mass (he was actually explaining the slowing of larger particles but that equates to mass). I think there is a lot of work still to be done in this area.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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