夢: 自私的校長

一校長似乎是明知學校底部洩漏幅射，甚至是他有份參與令幅射洩漏，好像他是在某陰謀中是拿學生來做實驗，他有份隱暪。他春江水暖鴨先知，為了利益卻明知有幅射都要忍到最後兩天才帶着女友逃命，而最後一天才通知學生，似乎是方便自己逃命而誤導學生由另一方向逃走。為此他膽戰心驚，怕得要死，找到一架開放式電梯，就是可以在電梯看到四周景色這種，好像不過是下降了幾層就到了私家車和女友相會，然後不知何故又分道楊標，就是女友像是跳車到在運行中的火車的側面，而竟然用側面來行駕的火車，有人接應打開了側門把她接了進去。

如何去拆散一粒電子?

這篇文章提到的科學原理其實和上一篇相差不遠，既然可以用快速的電磁場變化來把原子最外層的電子拆走，要是我們用此方法在一粒電子上，則同理電子會感應電磁場而自轉，當電磁場快速的由一極變化到相反的一極時，我們就可以不用超長的圓形軌道就可以做電子內部結構的研究，當然先決條件是可以把電子由原子中拆出來，然後再以此方法處理。當然亦要用到我的發明。

如何拆散一個原子?

這是朋友發明的自己清潔換水器帶給我的靈感，他以為最清潔的洗衣服方法不是單一方向不停轉而寄望於水流和衣服的磨擦，反而應是一個方向旋轉一會，形成轉動慣性後再向另一方向旋動，如此一來就有兩部的轉心力把污蹟沖走(但不可以用現行的馬達，因為如此會大大縮短它的壽命，要重新設計)。我之前也用英文發表過類似的想法應用在把原子電離化上面，因為電子是以一定的軌跡繞着核心轉動，而和電子轉動的方向的平均累加形成了原子的磁場，因此如果用強大的電磁場先引導所有電子向一個方向旋轉，然後忽然用另一個相反的電磁場先引導所有電子向相反方向旋轉，於是原子的最外層電子便有可能因為離心力比電子和質子的吸引力還要強而被扯離原子，於是我們便可以很方便的把原子離子化。但關鍵是目前任何的電磁線圈都有一定的電磁慣性，不可即時不單退磁，更可以轉到另一方向，所以就要應用我的新發明了。

More direction for developing Euler's Coil Technology

One more implementation of Euler's Coil Technology is instead of using one SOURCE electromagnetic coil in one setup, we could use more than one SOURCE electromagnetic coil. Euler’s Coil Technology could be phased as ‘What happen if we have four electromagnetic coils, and each electromagnetic coil is given a variation of electrical current as if we are using one SOURCE electromagnetic coil in original Euler’s Coil setup?’
We could infer given that the result of mutual induction of this alignment of electromagnetic coils would be identical to the variation of electromagnetic field of individual when only one SOURCE electromagnetic coil is given a variation. Certainly, any variations of electromagnetic field of one electromagnetic coil must be coherent other variations of electromagnetic field of any other electromagnetic coil, otherwise the mutual inductance would rise to infinite and no electrical current could flow in any one electromagnetic coil. Therefore, if we intentionally create variations of electromagnetic field of individual electromagnetic coils that is identical to what we expect when one SOURCE electromagnetic coil, we should expect individual electromagnetic coil would ‘encourage’ this variation of electromagnetic field by adding more electrical energy into each individual electromagnetic coil.

More direction for developing Euler's Coil Technology

One more implementation of Euler’s Coil Technology is instead of using one SOURCE electromagnetic coil in one setup, we could use more than one SOURCE electromagnetic coil. Euler’s Coil Technology could be phased as ‘What happen if we have four electromagnetic coils, and each electromagnetic coil is given a variation of electrical current as if we are using one SOURCE electromagnetic coil in original Euler’s Coil setup?’
We could infer given that the result of mutual induction of this alignment of electromagnetic coils would be identical to the variation of electromagnetic field of individual when only one SOURCE electromagnetic coil is given a variation. Certainly, any variations of electromagnetic field of one electromagnetic coil must be coherent other variations of electromagnetic field of any other electromagnetic coil, otherwise the mutual inductance would rise to infinite and no electrical current could flow in any one electromagnetic coil. Therefore, if we intentionally create variations of electromagnetic field of individual electromagnetic coils that is identical to what we expect when one SOURCE electromagnetic coil, we should expect individual electromagnetic coil would ‘encourage’ this variation of electromagnetic field by adding more electrical energy into each individual electromagnetic coil.

PMM machine powered by gravity?

This is intended more as a dilemma for classic Fluid Dynamic theory than as a working model for PMM. But in my mind, I think it is more like to construct a PMM using principle of fluid dynamic.

fdpmm080704

My thoughts on a thought experiment

The thought experiment I am referring is proposed by euler in here. It challenge the very idea of energy conservation in the process of electrical generation. Since we often think of generation of electricity using induced magnetic flux change in electromagnetic coil is a conversion process, which kinetic energy of the process of creating the magnetic flux change is converted into electrical energy. That experiment intended to prove otherwise.

My thought here is on how to improve that experiment with respect to the technicalities of that experiment. One technicality is the timing for turning on and off the electromagnetic coils: In case which the extra kinetic energy from the repulsion between the coil and swinging magnet would merely slow down the approach of the swinging magnet; in other case which that kinetic energy is helping to push swinging magnet downward. My suggestion is to use multiple independent electromagnetic coils arranged in a n*n square with only one end to face the poles approaching swinging magnet. This is applying Euler’s Coil’s principle to increase the strength of repulsion force, thus the kinetic energy given by the electrical generation process. Theoretically, that would decrease the time needed for the electromagnetic coil to be switched on.

My another design suggestion is instead of placing one electromagnetic coil at the highest point which the swinging magnet reach, we can place many electromagnetic coil along the rim of the circle(i.e. the trajectory of the swinging magnet). Only when the swinging magnet reach certain height then we activate those electromagnetic coils, what we intended to achieve here is the vector sum of all repelling forces from the electromagnetic coil has the effect of pushing the magnet upward in its original direction of motion. Then the electromagnetic coils are immediately shut off. Now, if the timing is excellent, we should have the swinging magnet has more kinetic energy after electrical energy is generated. That would pose more difficulties to the view that electrical generation is an energy conversion process, and allow us more choice to interact with the movement of the swinging magnet along its pathway.

My last design suggestion is to connect the electromagnetic coils in the left and right using even/odd number of independent electromagnetic coil. The purpose is to create a pull effect on one side of the swinging magnet and a push effect on the other side of the swinging magnet, thus increase the reactionary kinetic energy of the swinging magnet when it is nearest to the electromagnetic coil. Thus, in theory, the swinging magnet would swing indefinitely.

In either cases of my improvement, the law of conservation of energy in electrical generation is violated if we accept the notion that generation of electricity is an energy conversion process.
It doesn’t matter the technicalities of each suggestions as long as there exists cases against this law.

Further Development of Euler's Coil

(Original at: http://eulertruthbible.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/eulers-coils-foundation-mcssf-and-its-extension/)

Euler's Coil Technology is essentially the ways which electromagnetic coil arranged could affect its mutual inductance of the system as all. We can manipulate that to cause an imbalance of inductance in the magnetization of those electromagnetic coils, and the Back EMF caused by inductance in the demagnetization of those electromagnetic coils, so to harvest extra electrical/magnetic energy from the system. What I originally thought of is not using electromagnetic coil but the question: We all know that a magnetic field is weaken by distances, what if we feedback the magnet field from a field-emitting object back to itself? Does that achieve an strengthening effect on original field-emitting object itself?
Only now does I know that it is already been discovered in electromagnetism as the ‘Close-Loop’ Effect’, the magnetic field is stronger when placed near an object that would produce an induction effect. In a sense, the presence of field-responding object has create self-reinforcing circle of reinforcement of these magnetic fields.

Now what if we added the effect of Parallel Path Technology into that? i.e. If we have more than one close-loop that feedback to its original magnetic field-emitting object, wouldn't be able to strengthening the magnetic field further? Moreover, if Euler's Coil is arranged in such a way that some receiving coils are under the influence of more than one electromagnetic coils (i.e. For instance, in this arrangement). It is possible that the source electromagnetic coil would interacting with more than one electromagnetic coil, so it get more than one source of feedback. Suppose we arranged all of them that would mutually reinforce the effect of varying the polarity of one end of electromagnetic coil, would that theoretically further increase the effect of Euler's Coil, thus we could increase the extra electrical energy harvest from this invention?

From euler: Summary of Euler's Coil Technology

(Looks like Tesla Coil to me, it appears to me that many innovation now are only a renovation of past innovation from genius like Nicola Tesla. How backward is humanity still struggling with technology 50 years ago! This topic is worth exploring. It is also interesting that the implementations and experiments don't correspond closely with the theory. I will write a better one later.)

Theory: http://eulertruthbible.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/the-idea-of-eulers-coil-technology/

Consider n electromagnetic coils arranged in a circle with end to end. One electromagnetic coil is connected with A.C, and all other electromagnetic coils are switched on(i.e. Maximum electrical current). The is the source electromagnetic coil, and other are receiving electromagnetic coils. How is the mutual inductance of the system as a whole varies as n changes?

In the case of n=2, one can imagine that when one end of the source electromagnetic coil is induced to polarize in the direction of N, and the other end of the source electromagnetic coil is induced to polarize in the direction of S. Now it is obviously the one end of other electromagnetic coil would be induced to polarize in the direction of N and the other end would polarize in the direction of S. Thus, in a sense, the receiving electromagnetic coil added to the ‘ease’ of the source electromagnetic coil. We thus expect the mutual inductance of the system as a whole to be lower than individual electromagnetic coil.

In the case of n=3. For the sake of description, we assume that source electromagnetic coil is in the middle. Suppose the left end of the source electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of S, and the right end of the source electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of N. From the perspective of the induction from the source electromagnetic coil, the right end of the left electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of S, and the left end of the right electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of N. Due to the virtue of construction of electromagnetic coil, the two end of the same electromagnetic coil must be of opposite magnetic polarity. Therefore we suppose the left end of the left electromagnetic coil should polarize in the direction of N, and the right end of the right electromagnetic coil should polarize in the direction of S. However, since these two end are next to each other, from the perspective of mutual induction between the left electromagnetic coil and the right electromagnetic coil MUST be of the same magnetic polarity. Therefore we arrive in a contradiction between two induction tendency, which cancel each other out. Thus, we expect an mutual inductance of the whole system to be infinite, therefore it is impossible to magnetize the source electromagnetic coil. (The whole situation change, however, when we place an ferromagnetic metal bar to connect the left end of the left electromagnetic coil and the right end of the right electromagnetic coil.)

In the case of n=4. For the sake of description, we assume that source electromagnetic coil is in the leftmost. Suppose the left end of the source electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of S, and the right end of the source electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of N. From the perspective of the induction from the source electromagnetic coil, the left end of the 1st electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of N, and the right end of the 1st electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of S. The left end of the 2nd electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of S, and the right end of the 1st electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of N. For the 3rd electromagnetic coil, the left end polarize in the direction of N, and the right end of the 1st electromagnetic coil polarize in the direction of S. Notice that is of the same magnetic polarity as the left end of the source electromagnetic coil. Thus the mutual induction effect from the source electromagnetic coil produce the same direction of change in magnetic polarity as from the interaction from the pairs of receiving electromagnetic coils nearest to each other. The net effect is the mutual inductions of individual pairs of receiving electromagnetic coils added to each other. Thus we expect the mutual inductance of the system as a whole must be lower than we place all electromagnetic coils parallel to each other(as in a transformer.)

We can generalize the result to all cases which n is even. The mutual inductances of the system as a whole drop below the average. However when n is odd, the mutual inductances of the system as a whole goes up throw the roof. The gist of all of them: The configuration and arrangement of electromagnetic coils would alter the mutual inductance of the system as a whole that is not linearly related to the electromagnetic coil's natural inductances.

Could we get extra electrical energy by the virtue of how we arranged the electromagnetic coils? Is there exists particular configurations of electromagnetic coil that would increase and decrease the mutual inductance of the system as a whole? Could we use this method to maximize the chance of two electromagnetic coils resonance with each other? Could we use this method to alter the pattern of variation of the mutual inductance of the system as a whole to produce extra electromagnetic energy?

Yes, Euler think so. This would be a solution to the energy crisis. Science just doesn’t explore these instance of electromagnetic system because that may require a major modification of the laws in classic electromagnetic.

Discussion:

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil.jpg

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-2.jpg

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-3.jpg

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-4.jpg

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-5.jpg

Experiments:

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-experiment1.pdf

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-experiment2.pdf

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-experiment3.pdf

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-experiment4.pdf

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-experiment5.pdf

http://eulertruthbible.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eulers-coil-experiment6.pdf

An experiment on the Atomic Nucleus

According to my experiment on electrons proposal, we may observe interesting effect on the electrons itself if we applied a variable magnetic flux to the electrons. Since we could understand that the outlying electrons are further from the nucleus which require less escaping kinetic energy supplied by the Magnetic field, what would happen if we applied the same idea into the atomic Nucleus? As we all understand, the atomic nucleus are packed with protons which carry identical charges, thus the electrostatic repulsion force is very powerful within such a short distance are somehow neutralized by nuclear forces and possibly electromagnetic attraction forces withing the nuclear. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that would be easier to extract proton out of the atomic nucleus then extracting electrons out of the atom. As we already seen phenomena of proton ejected out of the atomic nucleus through nuclear decay; therefore theoretically we could use magnetic field to increase and decrease the rate of nuclear decay.

Double Oscillation in Magnetic field?

Idea of Double Oscillation.
Explanation see here.

My extension into Magnetic field:
mag_double_oscillation

A Question on electromagnetic inductance

When we magnetize an electromagnetic coil, it is often that we magnetize more than the electromagnetic coil itself. If we magnetize an electromagnetic coil nearby some iron sheets, theoretically we also require extra electrical energy to magnetize those iron sheets. In a sense, all ferromagnetic material in the universe would have to be magnetize, therefore it should be impossible to magnetize any electromagnetic coil. How could we magnetize any electromagnetic coil? Another question is, does the presence of iron not attached to the coil increase or decrease the inductance of the electromagnetic coil? If it increase the inductance then it would take longer for the electromagnetic coil to magnetize; if it decrease the inductance then it would take shorter time for the electromagnetic coil to be magnetize. So does it take longer or shorter with the presence of ferromagnetic materials? How does the presence of ferromagnetic material in surrounding environment increase/decrease the inductance of the electromagnetic coil?

My Parallel Path Idea

illl070820

When I was drawing this, I have forgotten that Lenz's Law would act in both direction, not just against the falling magnet from the top, so we need electronic component to restrict the flow of electrical current ONLY in the direction which produce a repulsive forces against the magnet. To be realistic, we also need a tube to ensure that the upper component fall and rise in a straight line above the component below. We are essentially converting gravitational energy into electricity here, and the magnetic flux is amplified by Parallel Path Effect in other side. Then the electromagnetic coil in the upper component would resist the magnetic field enhanced by Parallel Path Effect, push itself up.

Will this bounce?

Euler-Alex Cylindrical Paradox

Euler-Alex Cylindrical Paradox. Suppose we have a big vertically
placed hollow cylindrical object with spiral engraving on the surface.
The Spiral paint a trajectory from a point at the top rim of this
object to another point at the bottom of this object. Now we place a
metal ball of a small size that could fit the width of this spiral on
the starting position of the spiral on the top of this object and
release it. Naturally, gravity would pull this object downward. Do the
Math now.
Now the potential energy is Mass * Height * g, assume the ball is
rotating with constant speed, the kinetic energy is centripetal Force
* Distance= Mass* Velocity^2 / Radius* Number of Circle from top to
bottom(n)* 2* Pi* Radius (We assume the Spiral is approximate equal to
the length of a circle, however, the perimeter of this ellipse should
be GREATER than a circle), which we could rewritten to 2* Mass *
Velocity^2* Pi* n. And in textbook Physics we assume all the kinetic
energy is coming from the Gravity, therefore:
Mass * Height * g=Mass * Velocity^2 *n *Pi or
Height* g= Mass* Velocity^2 * n* Pi
Are they TRULY equal each other? It is impossible Mathematically
since the value of n is arbitrary! Theoretically it could equal to any
amount we want it to be. Of course, the result still await experiment
verification.
My prediction is no amount of experiment would prove this equation
right since it is WRONG theoretically. The reason?
Our assumption is wrong because we omit something very important:
The attraction force between the cylindrical object and the metal ball
which PROVIDE the energy which transform an otherwise free fall into
circular motion. It doesn't matter what material the ball and the
cylindrical object are made of, as long as the spiral trajectory could
keep the ball rolling. We just use Gravitation Energy to Lead Out this
non-obvious energy. The amount of energy lead out depend on the
geometry of the trajectory, has nothing to do with the mass of the
rolling object.
To complete the Paradox, suppose we have a way to transfer the
kinetic energy into other energy, and storing that energy. Then we use
that energy to rise the ball from bottom to the top. However, the
amount of energy is more than adequate to do that. The energy input is
LESS than energy output!
To increase the level of challenge, we could change this rolling
ball into a Magnets, and place coil vertically inside the cylindrical
object. Use the electrical energy produce to move the magnetic from
destination to starting point. Since it is inconceivable that the
rolling Magnet would slow down, we have a very simple Generator which
extract energy from Magnetic Field, Molecular Attraction and
Gravitational Field at the same time. Now Output is far greater than
input.
To increase the level if challenge further, now we use what the
rolling Magnetic to somehow power a Generator of the design in 1. The
Output to Input ratio could be of ANY number we wanted to (greater
than 1).
We start with every working Physics theory to arrive at a result no
conventional Physicist would accept.
I challenge any Physicist to prove me wrong, or to nominate me for
the Nobel Prize on Physics for theorizing on Perpetual Motion Machine.