ideas

Sorry. I'm saying sorry in advance because I have already posted my
views. Nonetheless, I have "refined" my paper of my ideas. This will
be the last post, unless I create a working prototype of one of my
inventions.

----------
Contents:

(1) Inventions
(2) Bird & Earth
(3) Work
(4) Electricity

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (1) INVENTIONS -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

Inventions:
1a) The "Wheel" Newton Motor
1b) The "Seesaw" Newton Motor
1c) The "Simple" Newton DC Motor
2a) The "Simple" Newton Engine
2b) The "Horseshoe" Newton Engine

These five inventions work on Newton's law that "every action has an
equal and opposite reaction." The idea is to harness the "action" and
elimenate the "reaction", or convert the "reaction" into something
useable. All inventions work without affecting the environment. That
is, they don't need a road to push off of like cars, they don't have
to push air like planes or spew out gases space shuttles. They propel
themselves *internally*. That is, you can put a box around the entire
device and the box would move, and nothing would enter or exit the
box, and the device itself wouldn't react with the environment inside
the box.

(must be read using a "fixed-size font" to view diagrams)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-1a) The "Wheel" Newton Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Side view:

m
-=-
- | -
|
/ \ | / \ ----- wheel with magnets
\ | / installed on the outside
/ \ | / \
\|/
m|------------*-----------|m
/|\ forward --
\ / | \ /
/ | \
\ / | \ /
|
- | -
-=-
||||||M2 m M1|||||| --- electromagnets (coils)
||||||M2 M1||||||
--------------------------- ---base


The magnets "m" are connected to a wheel (which is connected to the
base [connection not shown]), whereas the electromagnets "M1" and "M2"
are fastened to the base.

When one of the magnets "m" reach the bottom, an electric current is
sent through both electromagnets, creating magnetic poles "M1" and
"M2". "M1" should repel "m" while "M2" should attract "m". The force
on the magnet "m" will cause the wheel to turn (in the diagram, that
would be in a clockwise direction). Meanwhile, the forces on the
electromagnets "M1" and "M2" will cause the base to move in the
opposite direction (forward). Once the magnet "m" has moved
sufficiently far away, the electromagnets "M1" and "M2" should turn
off so that the next magnet "m" may come into position. So, the base
will experience a force in one direction, creating useful propulsion,
while the wheel can be hooked to a generator whose electrical output
can be used to add more power to the electromagnets.

Also, a motor may be needed to be connected to the wheel to start its
rotation, or to maintain it. The electromagnets require a tremendous
amount of current for a relatively short amount of time. Thus,
capacitors are ideal. Note that the magnets "m" on the wheel could
just as well be electromagnets.

Here's a variation: One could put M1 and M2 onto an "outer" wheel
which circles the "inner" wheel. The inner wheel would turn
clockwise, as in the diagram, while the outer wheel would turn
counterclockwise. Both wheels would be fed into generators. It would
be interesting to see whether the output power from both generators
matches (or surpasses) the input power of the two wheels. It's a long
shot, but this could be a free-energy device.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-1b) The "Seesaw" Newton Motor-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Top view:


M1a---M2a

m1
\
\ /\
\ ||
o --seesaw ||
\ forward
\
\
m2


M1b---M2b


Ideally, "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", "M2b", "m1", "m2" are all
electromagnets. "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", and "M2b" are fastened to the
base, while "m1" and "m2" are connected to a "seesaw" whose pivot
("o") is connected to the base.

When "M1a" and "m1" are nearly touching an electric current is sent
through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". "M1a" should repel "m1" while "M1b"
should attract "m1". Thus, both "M1a" and "M1b" will experience a
force in the forward direction, while the seesaw swings around
bringing "m2" close to "M2a". As "M2a" and "m2" are close now, an
electric current will pass through "M2a", "M2b", and "m2". "M2a"
should repel "m2" while "M2b" should attract "m2". Again, "M2a" and
"M2b" will experience a force in the forward direction while the
seesaw swings back to its starting position to repeat the cycle.
Thus, the base will experience forward propulsion as the seesaw
continually swings about.

If, as the seesaw swings, "m1" hits "M1b" or "m2" hits "M2b", then the
collision will slow the forward motion. One could avoid this by
keeping the back electromagnets far enough from the seesaw (as I have
in the diagram), or a brake could be installed in the pivot to stop
the complete swing of the seesaw.

In may seem that if the seesaw swings so hard that "m1" hits "M1a" or
"m2" hits "M2a" that the force of the collision will cause a forward
movement. This is wrong. Only the momentum of the seesaw will "push"
the base forward. However, when the seesaw hits the front
electromagnets, the entire seesaw will "buckle" and the backward force
of the electromagnet will be conveyed to the base through the pivot.
One could avoid this by changing the seesaw by bending it so as to
make a corner where it attaches with the pivot. Then, connect both
ends of the seesaw together, ideally, the connection should be a
curve. After doing that, the seesaw will undoubtly look more like a
slice of pizza. One could also reduce the slice of pizza to simply an
electromagnet fastened to a "line" which connects to the pivot. In
that case, the pizza slice would look more like a mallet (one
elctromagnet could be used in that case, instead of two).

Again, the electromagnets require a tremendous amount of current for a
relatively short amount of time. Thus, capacitors are ideal. Also,
some the electromagnets can be changed into permanent magnets where it
is fit.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-1c) The "Simple" Newton DC Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Front view:

--------- -- wire wheel
| |
/-|\ /|-\ -- frame (holds magnets)
| |mmmmmmmmm| |
| --------- | X forward
_|--mmmmmmmmm--|_ -- base (into paper)

/\
||__ magnets


Side view:

--
/ \ -- wire cylinder

| OO | forward --
||
\ || /
||
__||__ -- base


The Simple Newton DC Motor is similar to a regular "simple" DC motor
except that there is only a portion of the wire exposed to a magnetic
field. Thus the base experiences a forward movement, while the wire
wheel experiences a circular motion (in the "side view", the wire
wheel would move clockwise). The forward motion of the base can be
used to propel the entire motor (and its load). And of course, the
circular motion of the wheel can be harnessed to power a generator,
whose electrical output can then be fed back into the motor.

It should be noted that this Newton motor is inferior compared with
the Wheel and Seesaw Newton motors, and with the Newton Engines (which
follow).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-2a) The "Simple" Newton Engine=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Simple Newton Engine is simply a cylinder with a piston in it.
The piston may require wheels to move inside the cylinder.


STEP 1:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
The idea is to force the piston down the shaft, e.g. by using
electromagnets or the explosion of gas.

Side-view (cross-section):

| ___cylinder
| ||
| \/
|/-------------
|| #| forward --
|\-------------
| /\
| ||__ piston ("#")
|
|--start
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


STEP 2:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
As the piston moves down the cylinder, the cylinder itself will
accelerate and gain speed, and thus move forward.

--
| ___ The cylinder moves "forward"...
| ||
| \/
| /-------------
| | # |
| \-------------
| /\
| ||__ ...as the piston moves "back" through the cylinder
| --
|--start
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


STEP 3:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the "back"
of the cylinder. The piston must be stopped before it slams into the
back of the cylinder, because if it does, then the energy of the
piston will cancel out the "forward" velocity of the cylinder. So,
the energy of the piston must be removed (by friction, e.g. brakes on
the wheels) or harnessed (a method which converts the "negative"
energy of the piston into something useable).

|
|
|
| /-------------
| | # |
| \-------------
| /\
| ||__The piston must be stopped before it hits the "back"
|
|--start
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


STEP 4:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
When the piston has reached the end, and has been brought to a stop,
it must be moved to the front of the cylinder, perhaps by hooking it
to a chain which is being pulled by a motor. Perhaps, the piston can
be removed from the cylinder when it is being transferred to the
front, and thus leave the cylinder free so that another piston can
"shoot" through it.

|
|
|
| /-------------
| |# |
| \-------------
|
|
|
|--start
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


Return to STEP 1:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
The piston has been returned to the front. Overall, the engine has
moved and gained velocity. Now it is ready to restart at STEP 1.

|
|
|
| /-------------
| | #|
| \-------------
|
|
|
|--start
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-2b) The "Horseshoe" Newton Engine-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Horseshoe Newton engine is like the Simple Newton engine, except
that the chamber is a semi-circular loop.


STEP 1:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
Again, the idea is to force the piston through the chamber, e.g. by
using electromagnets or the explosion of gas. The piston should only
experience a force when it is going opposite the forward direction;
thus, the force on the chamber would be opposite that, that is, in the
forward direction.

Top view (cross-section):

__ __
piston -- |##| | |
("##") | | | |
| | | | --chamber
| | | |
| | | |
| \ / | /\
\ --____-- / ||
\_ _/ ||
--______-- forward
start -- -----------------
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


STEP 2:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
As the piston moves through the chamber, the chamber itself will
accelerate and gain speed, and thus move forward.

__ __ /\
| | | | -- The chamber ||
| | | | moves forward.. ||
| | | |
..as the | | | |
piston -- |##| | |
moves | \ / |
through the \ --____-- /
chamber. \_ _/
--______--

start -- -----------------
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


STEP 3:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the other
side of the chamber. Unlike the Simple Newton engine, the piston does
not have to be stopped from slamming into the chamber. Infact, when
the piston slams into the end of the chamber, the chamber will be
pushed forward.

__ __
| | |##| -- piston slamming
| | | | into end of chamber
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| \ / |
\ --____-- /
\_ _/
--______--


start -- -----------------
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


Return to STEP 1:
\-----------\-----------\-----------\-----------\
Also, note that the piston returns to a suitable position on its own,
unlike the piston in the Simple Newton engine which needs to be
"reloaded". Overall, the engine has moved and gained velocity. Now
it is ready to restart at STEP 1 (from the other side).

__ __
| | |##| -- piston slamming
| | | | into end of chamber
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| \ / |
\ --____-- /
\_ _/
--______--


start -- -----------------
/-----------/-----------/-----------/-----------/


It should be noted that both Newton Engines (especially the Simple
one) create a small amount of force for a relatively minute amount of
time. In my mind, they'd only be effective if many are used
simultaneously. For example, I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard
for either Newton engines to have a burst of 5N for a tenth of a
second. Building a unit of ten thousand of such Newton engines would
create a combined force of 5000N, assuming that the engines can
"reload" in 0.9 seconds.

However, if we can convert the Horseshoe Newton engine into an engine
which is as quick as the the Internal Combustion engine, then it would
create a large amount of force. The Internal Combustion engine has a
cycle of four strokes: the intake stroke, the compression stroke, the
combustion stroke, and the exhaust stroke. As the piston moves
through the Horseshoe Newton engine, the combustion stroke for one
part of the loop can be the compression or exhaust stroke for the
other side of the loop. That leaves out two strokes which must be fit
in somehow.

--------------------------------------------------
Magnetic Propulsion for the Newton Engines:

Cross-section:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmm ____ mmmmm -- "m" are magnets
mmmm /WWWWWW\ mmmm
mmm /W/ \W\ mmm
mm /W/ mm \W\ mm
m W mmmm W m -- "W" is a wire coil
m |W| mmmmmm |W| m
m |W| mmmmmm |W| m
m W mmmm W m X forward
mm \W\ mm /W/ mm (into paper)
mmm \W\____/W/ mmm
mmmm \WWWWWW/ mmmm
mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If the magnets "m" are arranged such that the field is perpendicular
to the wire, and if a current is set up in the wire coil, then the
wire coil will either move forward or backward. This setup can be
used in either of the Newton engines; the wire coil would be the
"piston" and the magnets would be part of the "cylinder" or "chamber".
The wire coil would need wheels on the side so that it could move
about inside the cylinder or chamber.


-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (2) BIRD & EARTH -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

Consider an Earth that is stationary and is not affected by any
external forces. Alone on the Earth is a hummingbird sitting in its
nest in the world's last tree. The rest of the Earth is totally
lifeless and motionless. Suddenly, the hummingbird, which has a mass
of 5 grams, begins to hover 5 kilometers off the ground. The downward
gravitational force on the hummingbird is given by the equation

F = G*m_b*m_e / (r+5)²

where G is the gravitatiional constant
(6.673 * 10^(-11) Nm²/kg²)
m_b is the mass of the bird (0.005 kg)
m_e is the mass of the Earth (5.97 * 10^24 kg)
r is the radius of the Earth (6.38 * 10^6 m)

Now, this hummingbird is resilient and has enough energy to hover
above the ground for 10^19 years. It is obvious that the hummingbird
is converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. As it flaps its
wings, two things happen; one, the hummingbird is pushed upward, and
two, air is pushed downward. Since the hummingbird is a fair enough
distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the
air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets
distributed amongst other air particles. And so, as this force is
distributed amongst billions of molecules, none of them ever gain a
sufficient velocity to reach the ground, and so the force isn't
conveyed to the ground.

So, we took care of all the forces, right? Wrong! We only considered
the gravitational force of the Earth on the bird. But what about the
gravitational force of the bird on the Earth? That force creates an
acceleration of

a = G*m_b / (r+5)²
= 8.196889698 * 10^(-27) meters/second²

After 10^18 years, when the hummingbird returns to its nest, the Earth
will be traveling at a velocity of

t = 10^19 years
= 3.15576 * 10^26 seconds

v = a * t
= 2.586741663 meters/second

The Earth was stationary and now it's moving at more than two
meters per second! Can you account for that? Where did the energy to
move the Earth come from? Some of you may argue that the bird's
chemical energy was converted to the Earth's kinetic energy. That's
quite ridiculous because, as we saw earlier, the chemical energy of
the bird was transferred to kinetic energy of its wings and then of
air particles; in simpler terms, the bird's energy simply pushed air,
nothing more.

I hope you can clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other
forces) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But
notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancles out".
You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was
perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually
falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth)
when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous
force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its
environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this
case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving.

What does all of this mean? It means that the law of conservation
of energy is wrong! It means that perpetual motion and free-energy
devices do not contradict reality!

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (3) WORK -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

20 joules equals 20 joules, right? Well, consider the following:

"Ball A"
work done = 20 joules
force = 10 Newtons
mass = 10 kg
acceleration = 1 m/s²
change in distance = 2 m
initial velocity = 0 m/s
final velocity = 2 m/s
change in time = 2 s

"Ball B"
work done = 20 joules
force = 10 Newtons
mass = 0.1 kg
acceleration = 100 m/s²
change in distance = 2 m
initial velocity = 0 m/s
final velocity = 20 m/s
change in time = 2/10 s

Each ball experienced the same force over the same distance. Each
ball had the same amount of work done on it. But, Ball A experienced
a force of 10 newtons for 2 seconds, while Ball B experienced the same
force for only 2 tenths of a second. However, if you agree that the
same amount of work was done on each ball, then we can say that "10
newtons held for 2 seconds can give the same result as 10 newtons held
for 2/10 of a second!"

Intuitively speaking, that's ridiculous! If you cannot see the
intuitive error present here, then the following analogy may help you.
Consider two classmates, Jack and Jill, both able to hold a one
kilogram brick. Naturally, holding that brick on Earth is
approximately equivalent to maintaining a force of 10 Newtons. Let's
say that Jack held his brick for 20 seconds, and Jill held her brick
for 2 seconds. Now, without using any scientific jargon, who did the
most work? If you try to answer that question in plain English, then
I'm sure you will see the intuitive error presented above. (Even if
you were to replace Jack and Jill with two tables, and rested the
bricks on the tables, work is still being done, as I mention below.)

This leaves the Joule system for work in a bit of a muddle, and I
fully agree that I'm not exactly sure how to explain this
short-coming, even though I'm sure I have the start.

We saw from the analogy that, in plain English, Jack did more work
than Jill. Thus, work should be (intuitively speaking) proportional
to force and a duration of time. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest
equation we can make using work, force and time is "W=Ft". Notice,
that this means that work done on an object does not neccesarily have
to create motion by increasing velocity. On the contrary, even if you
placed a book on a table, work is being done; the table is
"maintaining" a force, and likewise, the book is "maintaining" a
force. The work of gravity between the two is causing "stress" at the
atomic level. Work, in general, does not require an increase/decrease
in velocity. Thus, I call "W=Ft" the equation of "general" work.

However, let us consider "effective" work, a word I coined to mean
work that increases velocity unhindered by other forces. We will see
below that, effective work is really just general work which is
allowed to create motion, unhindered.

Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Intuitively speaking,
it is obvious that force should be proportional to mass and to
acceleration. However, why isn't there a "coefficient"? And why not
"mass squared" or "acceleration cubed"? The equation is how it is
because of two things; one, intuitively, it makes sense not to add
extra "factors" (Occam's Razor), and two, it simply gives the "right
answers".

Now, let's examine the equation for work as it stands today, that is
"W=½mv²". Intuitively speaking, "effective" work should be
proportional to mass and to velocity. However, we added "factors" to
the equation. Without using scientific or mathematical jargon, I say
that we should be able to explain, in plain English, why we added
factors to the equation. And if we can't, then by Occam's Razor, we
should remove those factors. And, if we do remove all the extra
factors, and say that the equation for effective work is "W=mv", then
we have again arrived at the equivalent general equation for work,
"W=Ft".

The equation "W=½mv²" seems to work, but does it really? Consider
dropping a brick from the height of one meter above the ground. Let
go, and the brick falls. Now, it is said that when you lift the brick
up to one meter, you have given the brick a "potential energy". But
let's consider two scenarios, Jack and Jill, each lifting the brick
from the ground to one meter above the Earth. Jack lifts it in 20
seconds while Jill lifts it in 2 seconds. True, the outcome is the
same for either participant. However, in plain English, Jack did more
work; he did the same amount of "useful" work, but he did a whole lot
of "useless" work by taking his time.

Now, work defined as it is today is wrong intuitively, but
nonetheless, it is a *VERY* *USEFUL* "measuring tool", and it *WORKS*
with the non-intuitive equation "W=½mv²". That is, it calculates
"useful" work, but not "useless" work. But intuitively, work should
encompass both "useful" and "useless" work.

I know that what I call work is called momentum and so I assert that
work and momentum should be equivalent and synonymous. And I propose
that the real unit for work (that is, force multiplied by time) should
be "P", for Prescott, Joule's middle name. Thus, one prescott equals
one newton second. I relegate the old, traditional meaning for work
to the term "typical useful work" or just "typical work".

If we allow work to equal mass multiplied by velocity then we can say
that force and work are both forms of energy, but they are apparent in
different "time frames". That is, work requires a duration of real
time for an effect to be experienced, while force requires an
infinitesimal amount of time to have an effect experienced.

The law of conservation of energy is wrong! There are two reasons
for this:

1) The Joule system is wrong (it only encompasses "useful" work)
2) Attributing potential energy to objects is usually wrong

"Potential energy" should only be called that so long as the potential
cannot disappear without being realized. Consider a balloon of
hydrogen a meter above the ground. The hydrogen has a mass of M.
Now, if we cause all the hydrogen to undergo fusion, then we'd be left
with a balloon full of helium and a whole lot of energy. The mass of
the helium would be approximately 0.992*M. There's a drop in mass.
But gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass. So, where
did that minute, but measurable, amount of potential energy go?!? It
got turned into various forms of energy, e.g. heat, light, sound. Do
these forms of energy have a gravitational potential energy? I don't
think so; sound definitely doesn't. So where did that gravitational
potential energy go?!? I don't know. There's definitely less. So,
either we say that potential energy was destroyed without being
realized (quite ridiculous), or we say that the hydrogen balloon never
truly had a "potential". (I'd go with the second one.)

In reality, energy is being created all around us instantaneously. (I
have never seen it be destroyed instantaneously.) When energy is
created instantaneously, its immediate affect on the system is nothing
(e.g. for forces, the vectors cancel each other out). After the
immediate effect, and after a minute amount of real time, this
instantaneous energy will be found to have either done "positive work"
on the system or "negative work"; that is, energy will be added to the
system, or removed. Should this instanteous energy be sustained for a
longer duration of real time, then the energy might be found to have
not added or removed any energy from the system (that is, it added the
same amount of energy that was removed).


-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (4) ELECTRICITY |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

Now, I am going to apply work using prescotts on an electrical
circuit.

***************************
Let's find the average drift velocity:
-------------------------
A is the average (weighted with respect to L)
cross-section of the wire (m²)
n is "free" electrons per unit volume (electrons/m³)
e is the magnitude of charge of an electron
(1.602 * 10^19 C/electron)
v is the average drift velocity of the electrons (m/s)
I is the current in the (C/s)
dq is an infinitesmal amount of charge (C)
dt is an infinitesmal amount of time (s)
dN is an infinitesmal number of electrons (electrons)
-------------------------
(1) dq = e*dN

dN = nAv*dt
(2) dt = dN/(nAv)

(1)/(2) dq/dt = e*dN/(dN/nAv)
I = enAv
v = I/(enA)


***************************
Let's find force:
-------------------------
W_j is the Work in Joules (N*m)
f is the force (N)
s is the distance (m)
V is volts (N*m/C)
-------------------------
W_j = F*s
dW_j = F*v*dt
dW_j/dt = F*v
V*I = F*v

V*I
F = -----
v

= VenA

-------------------------
P is pressure (Pa)
-------------------------
So,
F
V = ---
enA

P
= --
en

We can now omit the use of joules in the description of volts. We can
say that "Voltage is the electromagnetic-pressure (created by an EMF
source) per density of charge."

Notice that the pressure supplied by an EMF has nothing to do with the
length of the circuit. A battery hooked to a 1 meter circuit of 1cm²
wire uses the same pressure to start a current as a similar battery
hooked to a 10000 meter circuit of similar wire!

***************************
-------------------------
W_i is the Initial Work (in Prescotts) (N*s)
(the work done to start the electrical circuit)
t is a duration of time (s)
-------------------------
W_i = F*t
= VenA*t


***************************
-------------------------
U is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb (N*s/C)
Q is an amount of charge (C)
p is the resistivity of the wire (ohms)
l is the length of the wire (m)
-------------------------
U = W_i/Q
= F/I
= (VenA)/(V/R)
= enAR
= enA*(p*l/A)
= enpl

Now, "U" is a constant for any given circuit. So, given any circuit,
a constant amount of work is done to move a Coulomb along the circuit.
Makes sense that it doesn't vary..


***************************
-------------------------
µ is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb meter (N*s/(C*m))
-------------------------
µ = dU/dl
= enp

Thus, the rate at which work is done per unit distance depends only on
the material. Makes sense..


***************************
-------------------------
t_c is the average change in time between electron collisions (s)
m_e is the mass of an electron (9.109 * 10^(-31) kg/electron)
-------------------------

Each electron gains "m_e*2v" of energy (remember, we are using
prescotts) before it makes a collision and losses it's energy. The
collision will take place in "t_c" seconds. "U" is the amount of work
to move a Coulomb "l" meters. Thus, in "l" meters, there will be
"l/(v*t_c)" number of collisions. So,

l m_e*2v
----- * ------ = U
v*t_c e

2*l*m_e
--------- = enpl
t_c*e

2m_e
t_c = ----
e²np


which is correct.


***************************
-------------------------
W_t is the Total Work (in Prescotts) (N*s)
(the total amount of work done by all the electrons)
l_c is the average length between electron collisions (m)
a is acceleration (m/s²)
-------------------------

F
a = -----
m_e
------------------------------------------

v = a * t_c

F
v = ----- * t_c
m_e
------------------------------------------

l_c = 2*v*t_c

2F
= ----- * (t_c)²
m_e
------------------------------------------

W_t = F * (l/l_c) * t


l
= F * -------------- * t
2F
----- * (t_c)²
m_e


m_e
= ---------- * l * t
(2m_e)²
2(----)
(e²np)


m_e
= ----------- * l * t
8(m_e)²
---------
e^4n²p²


e^4n²p²
= --------- * l * t
8m_e
------------------------------------------

Even though the pressure by a source on two different circuits which
use the same wire is the same, it's obvious that more *work* is being
done in a longer circuit. The reason why the force/pressure is the
same while the work isn't is not hard to understand. An EMF source
creates "electromagnetic pressure" on the anode and/or cathode. Once
a circuit is started, this electromagnetic pressure is felt throughout
the circuit. You can imagine the electrons as being dominoes.
Whether you have 1 meter of dominoes falling or 10000 meters of
dominoes falling, the initial force to topple the first domino may be
the same, and yet, the amount of work done (the number of fallen
dominoes) can be very different. This obviously means that energy
*isn't* conserved. That's right.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

P.S. Two masses (e.g. stars) with sufficient velocities can pass by
each other without colliding and both gain speed. (As I said above,
gravity can create energy.) I believe that that might be the cause
for the seeming acceleration of the expansion of the universe, not
"dark energy". Just a guess..

by Raheman Velji, unfortunately known as the devil.