The main tank, brimful with ideas. Enjoy them, discuss them, take them. - Of course, this is also the #1 place for new submissions!
By Fairfield
#5125
In the reply above I should have used the phrase "multiple molecular, or atomic, ELECTRON currents".

Fairfield
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
#5130
I must finish my web site design and upload it to the server as fully operational by Friday night. If I finish early then I'll try to respond.

For now though, we should consider starting a new topic for this and perhaps breaking it up into 'bite sized' peices so that others can understand and participate. I'll be trying to think of a good topic title and then we'll compare notes.
By Fairfield
#5148
Here are a few deductions resulting from reducing magnetism to ampereism:

Referencing Ampereic lines of force, instead of magnetic lines of force, makes it easier to explain the physical reactive motions of current carrying wires in relation to magnetic fields. For instance, the Lorentz Force resolves into the, less mysterious, current carrying wire being attracted toward the side of a current carrying coil which has the same direction current as the movable current carrying wire The same applies to currents in cathode ray tubes when they are manipulated with varying currents in coils. The Hall Effect is easily explained in a similar way.
By Fairfield
#5160
I forgot to add to the above list of interesting deductions resulting from simplifying magnetic lines of force into ampereic lines of force, that it eliminates the currently supposed magnetic wave in electromagnetic waves, leaving a more mechanically conceivable single wave entity vibrating on only one axis at a time rather than two waves vibrating simultaneously on two axis 90 degrees apart.

Fairfield
By Fairfield
#5202
Here is another try at clarifying some of the explanation above which is difficult to
concisely present without pictures.

Two single turn DC carrying coils placed near to each other, and on the same axis, are merely two bent around parallel wires which will attract or repel each other depending on whether their parallel currents are in the same, or opposite, directions. If two single
turn DC carrying coils are each formed into an equal sized square, and the two squares are placed near to each other on the same axis, it will be seen that there are, in this case, 4 sets of parallel wires shared between the two coils. Between the two squared coils there may be either attraction or repulsion, depending on whether their parallel currents are in the same direction or the opposing direction. Since merely flipping the face of one of the squares, 180 degrees, automatically reverses the
current spatially, the previous physical attraction or repulsion between the two squares will then also be reversed.

Since the working force between the two squared coils is obviously the effects of
close parallel currents rather than a mysterious force in the middle of each of the two coils, called a magnetic field, it is apparent that what we call a magnetic field is only the VECTOR RESULTANT of the distributed forces around the perimeters of, and between, the two coils.

Since physical magnets show the same physical reactions between them as DC carrying coils show, I assume a similar process is at work between magnets, but, instead, it relies on the net effect of many separate micro electric currents within the magnets instead of single locatable currents.

Fairfield
By Fairfield
#5210
Fairfield wrote:I forgot to add to the above list of interesting deductions resulting from simplifying magnetic lines of force into ampereic lines of force, that it replaces the currently supposed transverse magnetic wave in electromagnetic waves, and replaces it with a radial alternating compression and rarefaction component.

Fairfield
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
#5218
"...radial alternating compression and rarefaction component"

Sorry but I do not understand these two terms -- especially "rarefaction". Please explain.
By Fairfield
#5224
Michael D. Grissom wrote:"...radial alternating compression and rarefaction component"

Sorry but I do not understand these two terms -- especially "rarefaction". Please explain.

I don't blame you for not understanding those two terms because from a scientific point of view they cannot yet be considered right. I am inclined to believe in the existence of an aether of some gassy sort, so I unconsciously wrote my perspective into the post. However, all we apparently have, so far, is a transverse waving voltage force moving radially and a radially moving, longitudinally alternating, inductive field. Whether there is a compressible or noncompressible substance there, or just something we can only call fields, hasn't been determined yet.

Fairfield
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
#5234
Fairfield <---- I corrected your statement as you wanted and then deleted the request.

I reread most of your posts above but seem to have lost track of what it is that you are trying to do. I THINK youre trying to redefine or revise old theory with something more logical that perhaps explains things that the old theory can't.

Could you please write a short paragraph explaining what you are trying to accomplish. This would make it a lot easier to follow your posts. If I understand it well enough then I'll illustrate/animate it to make it even easier to understand.

THEN -- I'll start a new topic off with the illustration/animation and easy to understand text for all to follow ----> if it relates to an idea or invention. If not then I'll have to do it in a different catagory somewhere in the "Great Lakes" section.

Let me know what you would like to do with this.

For now, because this is so far off topic that nobody will probably see or understand anything beyond this point, and until we can create a topic where it fits, then, please feel free to use my email instead. I can respond a lot quicker there as I read my emails every 15 minutes or so. Thanks!!!
By silverhammers
#5827
I have a bit of electronics experience, not a working knowledge though. However, I think you all are looking at the wrong solution to the problem of loud commercials.

I have thought that a device that has a volume control that the user sets and forgets. It would have a small microphone with a small equalizer that would recognize that the sound level has exceeded the set level. And maintain that level the same way a remote control device does, but without the need of manual manipulation. This is probably the same way that the television manufacturers have built it into the system.

Again, I am not an electronics technician (anymore), I was one in the US Navy twenty years ago, but this does not seem to be a difficult problem. The only issue I see is the small sound bar at the bottom of the television screen. My TV allows me to have that bar not visible.
By natestansfield
#14936
MY TV HAS AUTOMATIC VOLUME CONTROL. IT IS A PHILIPS-MAGNAVOX SMARTSOUND. IT IS FOR YEARS OLD BUT IT WORKS GREAT. PERFECT SOUND LEVELING. COMMERCIALS NEVER GET LOUDER THAN THE MOVIE. PHILIPS MAGNAVOX ARE THE BEST TV'S THERE ARE. MY LITTLER MAGNAVOX HAS PICTURE IN PICTURE SO YOU CAN STILL WATCH YOUR PROGRAM AND SEE WHAT'S ON OTHER CHANNELS
By ambok
#21728
When you adjust the volume on most televisions, there is a little bar that lets you know the level of volume. If you had an object that constantly changed the volume this would get quite annoying. I also think that sony has came out wit that idea. Its called smart sound. Look it up.




cnx nano premium
OFFSHORE

Is there anymore need for physical cards? I suppos[…]

A Place for problems and solutions

This is a really good proposal. One title could be[…]

Team Innovating Forum

Are there forums for team innovating? Normally peo[…]

Whats your favorite Xbox game?

Mine is outrun2