Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Have Force Fields and Anti-Gravity been Discovered by Accident?

Have Force Fields and Anti-Gravity been Discovered by Accident?

I’m just cutting out the relevant section of a much larger article by David N. Jamieson PhD., School of Physics at the University of Melbourne. Basically, Jamieson appears to be describing magnetism as a charge imbalance that can have different effects/affects. This is maybe why the so called magnetic monopole hasn’t been found. It probably wouldn’t exist in this scenario, although it might cause problems with some aspects of the Lorenz equations. I’m not saying this as someone who really understands those equations in the mathematical sense, just noting that some have said that in order for those equations to be completed to show symmetry, magnetic monopoles need to exist in some fashion.

What particularly struck me was that here is a global or very general explanation as to why the force field might have been generated by the moving sheets at the polyethylene factory (an article I sent out earlier and here attached). Magnetism as iron metallic attraction may be only one aspect of strong electron/proton imbalances. One might imagine the repulsion affect being caused by a proton imbalance as in a vast excess of protons in relation to electrons. I tend to use what little I know of physics in a metaphorical and metaphysical sense, which is to say that one looks at the big picture in terms of relationships between groups, actions, fields, symptoms and phenomena and then points to possibilities. I leave the math to those that can do it but I sure like looking under the hood of this baby. Why does this excite me? Regardless of the difficulty in figuring this out, it represents a direction to go and a direction to look in for the future development and production of force fields, levitation/anti-gravity and a host of power generation applications that would, in all likelihood, translate into a technological singularity.

I’ll append the factory episode at the end of this article so that you can all connect the dots in your own way. Here is the text of Jamieson's thoughts:


“…Hence the attractive and repulsive forces are no longer balanced, which results in a net electrostatic force acting on the charged particle.

If we carefully do the algebra required to transform this electrostatic force back into the original reference frame of the metal ions, in which the nearby charged particle is moving, we find that it is equal to the magnetic force that we expect to find! In other words, what the moving charged particle experiences as a purely electrostatic force from the unbalanced linear charge densities is described in the original reference frame as a velocity dependent force, which is what we call a magnetic force.

The imbalance in the linear charge densities between the positive metal ions and the moving electrons, measured in the reference frame of the moving charge, is a result of the Lorentz contraction due to the relative motions of the nearby charged particle, the electrons flowing in the wire and the metal ions. This relativistic effect is perhaps most familiar to us when applied to fast moving objects. Let us see how fast the electrons are moving in a typical current carrying wire. In a copper wire the density of copper atoms is about 8.5´1022 atoms per cubic centimeter, and hence the density of free electrons is about the same. In a copper wire with a cross sectional area of 1 square millimeter and carrying a current of 10 Amps the formula for v given above shows that the electron velocity is only 0.7 millimeters per second. This is an extremely small velocity! The Lorentz contraction for such a small velocity differs from 1 by only 3´10-24. This unimaginably small contraction is nevertheless sufficient to cause a slight imbalance in the positive and negative charge densities of the wire that causes moving charged particles to feel a magnetic force.

Keep it in mind that this magnetic force is tremendously weaker than either of the two, almost balanced, electrostatic forces from the electrons or the metal ions. If the free electrons from 1 meter of wire could be fully separated by 10 centimeters from the positive metal ions then the attractive electrostatic forces between these two lumps of negative and positive charges would be about equal to the gravitational force between the Earth and the Moon! It is the enormous strength of the electrostatic forces that is the reason why we don’t often use them directly in our technological applications. It is simply too hard to separate positive and negative charges. It is much easier to exploit the incredibly slight imbalance brought about by the relativistic Lorentz contraction that is noticeable as magnetism.

Think about that next time you feel the mysterious tug of a magnet. “

   SESSION 7: SPECIAL SESSION, 17th Annual EOS/ESD Symposium
   THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995, 8:00 am
   MODERATOR: D. Swenson, 3M
   CURE, D. Swenson, 3M Company
   Tremendous static charge generation on a plastic web causes unique
   physical phenomena and special problems. Solution was simple and cost

David Swenson of 3M Corporation describes an anomaly where workers encountered a strange "invisible wall" in the area under a fast-moving sheet of electrically charged polypropylene film in a factory. This "invisible wall" was strong enough to prevent humans from passing through. A person near this "wall" was unable to turn, and so had to walk backwards to retreat from it.

This occurred in late summer in South Carolina, in extremely high humidity. Polypropylene (PP) film on 50K ft. rolls 20ft wide was being slit and transferred to multiple smaller spools. The film was taken off the main roll at high speed, flowed upwards 20ft to overhead rollers, passed horizontally 20ft and then downwards to the slitting device, where it was spooled onto shorter rolls. The whole operation formed a cubical shaped tent, with two walls and a ceiling approximately 20ft square. The spools ran at 1000ft/min, or about 10MPH. The PP film had been manufactured with dissimilar surface structure on opposing faces. Contact electrification can occur even in similar materials if the surface textures or micro-structures are significantly different. The generation of a large imbalance of electrical surface-charge during unspooling was therefore not unexpected, and is a common problem in this industry. "Static cling" in the megavolt range!

On entering the factory floor and far from the equipment, Mr. Swenson's 200KV/ft handheld electrometer was found to slam to full scale. When he attempted to walk through the corridor formed by the moving film, he was stopped about half way through by an "invisible wall." He could lean all his weight forward but was unable to pass. He observed a fly get pulled into the charged, moving plastic, and speculates that the e-fields might have been strong enough to suck in birds!

The production manager did not believe Mr. Swenson's report of the strange phenomena. When they both returned to the factory floor, they found that the "wall" was no longer there. But the production workers had noticed the effect as occurring early in the morning when humidity was lower, so they agreed to try again another day. The second attempt was successful, and early in the morning the field underneath the "tent" was strong enough to raise even the short, curly hair of the production manager. The "invisible wall" effect had returned. He commented that he "didn't know whether to fix it or sell tickets."

                                                    - Bill Beaty

Problems: coulomb forces would be expected to *attract* a person into the "chamber" formed by the PP film, and the attractive force should be fairly linear across distance. There should be no "wall" in the center, a "wall" is repulsive and nonlinear. If for some reason a person was repelled from the center of the chamber rather than being attracted, the repulsion force should exist over a large distance, it should act like a deep pillow which exerts more and more force as one moves deeper into it. It should not behave like a "wall". This is how magnets and iron behave, and this is how e-fields and conductive objects should also behave.

A thought: unspooling of film typically generates higher net charge on the long piece of film than on the limited surface of the spool. However, since net charge is conserved, imbalances of charge MUST be equal and opposite. The charge on the entire length of moving film MUST be equal in magnitude to the charge on the spool, yet the charge on the film is very large and is continuously increasing. The limited surface-charge on the spool indicates that opposite charge is being lost through some unseen path, most probably as IONIZED AIR.

Charged air would arise in the cleft between film and spool as the film was peeled from the spool. I wonder if film was peeled from the top of the spool, so that any ionized air would be launched into the "tent-chamber" region? If it was peeled from the bottom of the spool, the charged air would end up outside the "tent." Or, if a corona discharge arises in the cleft between film and spool, perhaps the UV and e-fields of this corona can ionize the air on both sides of the exiting plastic film, and spray the charged air everywhere.

So, if the charged "tent" of film is negative in the above situation, and if a large quantity of positively charged air is being generated at the spool, then perhaps the "invisible wall" is caused by a cloud of suspended air ions. Perhaps it is a pressure gradient created by ionized air trapped under the tent by electrostatic attraction. Yet this effect would be expected to create a diffuse zone of increasing force, not a "wall", but an "invisible pillow."

However, a volume of charged air is somewhat analogous to iron filings near a magnet. If a solid sheet of iron filings is held in place by a magnet, then a literal "wall" is created, and this wall will resist penetration by nonferrous objects. If in the above manufacturing plant a sheet of highly charged air is for some reason being held in place by the fields created by the charged film, then a transparent "wall" made of charged air would come into being. It might resist penetration by human bodies.

My question is this: if the entire situation could be turned on its side, so the "invisible wall" became an "invisible floor", could a person *stand* on it? Have we discovered the long-sought "Zero-G waterbed?" :) - B.B.

No comments: