Oh my.
Allow me put a few of my qualifications on the table. Then I'd like to see yours.
I hold a High School Diploma that predates a lot of the junk education of the last 20 years.
I am a trained Aviation Electronics Technician with additional training as a Calibrations Technician courtesy of the US Navy and a veteran. I still practice my profession.
I hold Engineering equivalent training in the fields of Electrical and Electronic theory, among others, and exercise my knowledge as a
minor inventor (this means I actually build things).
I consider myself well read and often read up on development of both true scientific literature; not just in my field but others; and enjoy the more esoteric studies~ junk science~ why? because you never know.
I am a trained observer and believer in the scientific method. I am also a bit of a mystic so I do feel I try to keep an open mind because there are so many things that just are not fully understood. Some might call that hypocritical, I don't, but I am prone to back up my thoughts with facts and allow "God" to take over the rest.
Now that's just a little bit about me
Nice to meet you.
Now the tear~ sorry your not backing up you thoughts and show a defined lack of understanding for the basic concepts under laying what your expounding apon. I'm a bit offended by your assertion that the books are being rewrote~ maybe the history books but the science behind what we are "debating" is sound and what ever revisions being made to it are only modifications to the original work. Tweeks if you will.
Don't feel badly about the following~ this is something I feel a need to do if only to be clear:
Many of you're assertions are wrong about eddy currents and eddy current separators. I don't feel like writing a book either so we'll agree to disagree. As far as the electret I think you're missing what it is. It's a permanent charge electrostatic magnet essentially.
My response to this: What assertions are you talking about? That an eddy current separator uses the principles of diamagnetic materials to effectively separate them from other materials. Well its true and I'll not agree to disagree on the point. Fact is that when strong magnetic fields are induced in diamagnetic materials these materials react by generating Lorenz forces, eddy currents, that are polar opposites to the magnetic field interacting with the material. This produces counter electromotive force in the material that when of sufficient strength eject the material, repulsion, away from the magnetic source. This is the same principle for electric generators and motors. Interestingly enough it works~ we would not have the society we have today without these principles.
I'm not missing the point of what an electret is either. It is not a magnet. It is considered the opposite of a magnet. Magnets exercise a field of force potential. Electrets generate an electrostatic field~ ie its composed of electrons and has a negative electrical differential. Magnets do not exhibit electric potential only force potential. Magnetic force potential moves things, electrical potential is the ability to attract or repulse other materials of differing electrical potential so that electrons can move between energetic states.
Just a simplistic explanation by the way.
What you need to understand is all of your assertions about electrostatic forces come from books. Science is not only reading other peoples findings, but observation, testing every possible variable, and then coming to a conclusion. While still knowing you will probably never fully understand what is going on. The latest studies by universities on static-electricity come to the conclusion that all of our assertions on static electricity are wrong. Specifically the point about positive and negative static charge buildup. Studying these assertions some very bright minds have discovered that is far from the actual case. They recommended new research into the subject. So I will disagree with the text book explanation you have provided here, because the creators of those books are re-writing the story currently and I have observed things myself that back their claims.
My response to this: I laid out my qualifications. You have obviously made some error in you assumptions of who I am. Better you should have asked before you point the bony finger at me. This is an offensive statement in two ways : First your assumptions of who your talking too and second your complete lack of backing evidence for this new research which I'd be happy to read by the way. There is a third error in this statement as well~ electrets do not develop positive charges. Static charges are generated by free electrons and are negative qualities. Positive potentials are generated by removal of electrons from a material exposing the positive potential of the protons in an atoms core whether natural of mechanical induced. Electrets develop these charges by striping electrons from other sources.
I'll add, before anyone gets on the misconception band wagon, electrostatic potentials are different than potentials created by electromotive forces generated by magnetic generators or motors. In the case of generators electron flow is accomplished by essentially pushing electrons out of atoms and the force potential between the positive and negative fields of the magnet or battery on the circuit create the electrical potential that moves the electrons along. Again a simplistic view.
As to books
Well if enough people say its so and it works well who am I to argue unless I observe and consequently prove via scientific method I am correct.
Now here is another fun statement~~ I laughed quite a bit but hey I'll give you the respect your not willing to give others for the last 200 years
Now as far as an electret being a diamagnet... You have to understand as I stated before electro-static forces are not just build up of electrons. An electret is dipolar. That in itself should make you see this not a transference of electrons or some kind of build up. What you are missing is electro-static forces are the yin to electricity's yang. They are EQUAL but opposite forces. An electret has no effect on a compass on either pole. If a magnet has north-south poles, you'll have to imagine an electret has east-west poles.
An electric motor is comprised of a magnet, some copper wire, and current. When current is applied the copper wire becomes magnetically charged in opposition to the pole of the magnet facing it. This in turn creates MAGNETIC repulsion and causes spin on the freely rotating copper wires.
My response : In the first sentence Electrets and any material are diamagnetic. An excerpt from Wikipedia says it well : Diamagnetic materials create a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field. It is a quantum mechanical effect that occurs in all materials; where it is the only contribution to the magnetism the material is called a diamagnet. Unlike a ferromagnet, a diamagnet is not a permanent magnet. Its magnetic permeability is less than μ0 (the permeability of free space). In most materials diamagnetism is a weak effect, but a superconductor repels the magnetic field entirely, apart from a thin layer at the surface.
And Yes I understand electrostatic charges~ they are a build up of negative electrons and yes this is a bi-polar process however the material, electret, is electron rich and there is no substantial flow of electrons from negative to positive potential so in effect electrets always carry a negative charge until they are depleted of excess electrons.
So the second sentence is disproved.
In the third sentence I'm not missing any yin or yang. The two processes for electron motivation are very different however they hold the same key for movement~ electrons will move from a higher potential state to a lower potential state and that movement can be harvested to provide real work in an appropriate electrical circuit. There is nothing equal or opposite about the effect as stated in the next line.
In the next line, of course there is not effect on a compass by an electret~ as you so eloquently put it~ it is according to you a diamagnetic material and hence has no magnetic force potential. Cant move a compass magnet without magnetic force now can we. In fact that is one of the operational principles behind a compass.... magnetism.
Now this was funny. In the next line you seem to be lost about magnets so I'll answer you question : Yes magnets have what we define as north and south poles. In your thoughts on electrets the electrostatic field is composed of an E field and a charge vector not unlike E and H fields associated with moving electrons in a conventional electronic circuit. I really was quite amused at the east west simile. I really don't have to imagine this field~ I've had to calculate it more than a few times and there are physical experiments I've performed and which I've observed that define it pretty nicely.
Now about the motors in the next, ahem, paragraph. I'm still not sure why you even talk about it. However I think your trying to tie it to the next paragraph.
Your attempting to describe a dc motor is my guess and your forgetting that you require a rotor and that switching is required to induce reversed polarity emf by the current running thru the copper coil as it develops a magnetic field, due to Lorenz forces, to act on the permanent magnet that creates the repulsion effect. Now there is one more piece your forgetting and that's the power source. But then you maybe trying to tie that into the next paragraph as well. I'm pretty familiar with dc and ac motors. So lets see.
Now our motors operate on high current and low voltage. Substitute electrets instead of magnets. Static electricity happens to be high voltage low current. When you apply high voltage and low current static to those wires does the motor work? Don't speculate, test it out for yourself, then let me know. Because you won't find books on this subject. The original post is really for the dreamers and doers, it wasn't meant for people who already understand everything. It was meant for those who are still looking for the answers.
Motors can operate on either high voltage low current or low voltage high current systems depending on what your design specifications are for. So I reject this argument.
Electrets do not perform like a battery or a generator in terms of total electron flow from positive potential to negative potential. They can however operate like a capacitor and are used like such. To my knowledge there are no known Electret power sources. The charge discharge cycle of a capacitive circuit is very well known as well as is the total electrons, their potentials and effects in a circuit as those electrons move from one potential to another. Coulombs law again as well as the work by Ampere in his force law. Don't forget Ohm's law either. Whether its high V low A or otherwise a properly created circuit can harvest the work by moving electrons. Static mean just that, Static: not moving.
Not moving~ no work can be done.
All this is actually in the books. I don't need to test it as there is quite a bit about the subject already. Just takes a bit of learning and practice~ both of which I have. Maybe, just maybe I'll play with the idea of using an electret as a power source. But honestly that's not what this thread is about according to your opening statement so I'll let it lay.
You appear to by trying to impress someone that you found a new idea for separation of gold via magnetism and I'm saying it just aint so. Gold is not magnetic.
Now as to the last statement of this paragraph : I will tell you what this is just about as insulting as most of what your saying including the last paragraph. Your talking to a dreamer *see qualifications* so what the heck. You cant get your facts strait, back them up and show a distinct lack of fundamental knowledge.
"You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book which is correct." - Edward Leedskalnin 1936
How many times have those textbooks been re-written in the last 78 years?
This last quote coming from a 4th grade drop out with a bone to pick with the world. I will say I am impressed with his use of leverage to make the Coral Castle in Florida.
Edward Leedshkalnin left a pretty impressive impression behind but he was hardly a scholar. That you'd follow him, sigh. Well your statements in this thread make it pretty apparent that ignorance is bliss to those who enjoy it.
Books have been being rewritten since time immortal. However the facts when they are discovered still stand. Sit down and read some of those books and get out of the internet for some real education. Don't just read the ones you like either~ read the ones you don't like as well. This makes grounds for a well rounded education. And heck you may learn something about the world.
I'm not even going to get into the other post~
Enough said. My apologies to anyone who might take offence at my statements but this kind of stuff really irks me.
Thanks for reading.
DDancer
.....all books are wrong.....I'm as dumb now as I was 25 years ago in another 25 years I will be dumber by a factor of 3 .....I'm just gonna drink more coffee and hope for the best.
....
