Experiment to Demonstrate that the Uncharged Electron is a “Rotating Unit of Space”

Experiments being conducted by ISUS, primarily on "alternative" systems that the RS provides an explanation for.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Experiment to Demonstrate that the Uncharged Electron is a “Rotating Unit of Space”

Post by bperet » Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:43 am

In September of 1935, Richard A. Beth published a paper entitled, “Direct Detection of the Angular Momentum of Light”1 that demonstrated circularly polarized light possessed torque, and when a beam of circularly polarized light was directed at a darkened plate suspended by a string, that torque would cause the plate to rotate.

In his writings on the Reciprocal System of physical theory, Dewey B. Larson asserts that the uncharged electron is a “rotating unit of space” and should also possess torque. The purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate the rotational character of the uncharged electron, using an experimental setup similar to Beth's where the darkened plate is replaced by a rotating conductor and the photons are replaced with uncharged electrons.

This experiment will demonstrate the following principles of the Reciprocal System:
  1. The electron does exist in an uncharged state as electric current, separate from the charged electron model used by conventional physics.
  2. The uncharged electron is a rotating unit of space, possessing torque, and can therefore influence spatial motion.
  3. The uncharged electron moves through the time of the atom, not the space between atoms.
Background
In the Reciprocal System of physical theory (RS), the electron exists in two states, charged and uncharged. The charged electron is the conventional electron referred to in physics, whereas the uncharged electron is unknown. (In the RS2 reevaluation of the RS, the uncharged electron is identified as the “hole” in conventional, electric theory.) Larson asserts that the uncharged electron is the mechanism behind electric current.2

The concept of “voltage” is the ratio of charged to uncharged electrons in a conductor, mediated by resistance.

In the RS, the atom exists as temporal rotations in the “time region,” located on a coordinate, spatial grid. In a solid such as a metal, the time regions are dimensionally locked into position and cannot reorient their internal arrangement without the considerable application of force. Mechanical movement, linear or rotational, will affect the entire structure, not the individual time regions.

The RS is based on the concept of motion, a reciprocal relation between space and time. Space can therefore move through time, and time through space, but space cannot move in relation to space, nor time in relation to time.

Because of this, the rotating space of the electron cannot move through the spatial vacuum between atoms, as the relation of space-to-space does not constitute motion. Instead, the uncharged electron, the electric current, moves through the time of the atoms, as space-to-time does constitute motion. The electrons move through the “solid of time” of the atom, just as bubbles move through water.

Under normal environmental conditions, the orientation of the spin of uncharged electrons is basically random, being a function of the orientation of the magnetic axes of the time region and changes as the electron moves from atom to atom. Because the electron is inside the unit space boundary, external EM fields have minimal affect on the orientation of the electron within the time region.

In order to obtain an effect similar to Beth's setup, a bias must be created within the time region to orient the uncharged electrons in the same spin direction. The solution is simply angular momentum.

The uncharged electron has a mechanical analogy of a gyroscope. When a gyroscope is placed in a gimbal and the gimbal assembly is then rotated about another axis, the two, rotational planes align to minimize the angular momentum between them. (Demonstrated by the common physics experiment of holding a spinning bicycle wheel while standing on a rotating platform.) The same situation happens within the time region, when a conductor is rotated about its axis—it creates a bias to the uncharged electron rotation.

If a sufficient quantity of uncharged electrons is present in the conductor, the “rotating unit of space” that is the electron will add its torque to the rotation of the conductor, accelerating the rotation until mechanical losses and resistance prevent further acceleration.

Whereas voltage is defined as the ratio of charged to uncharged electrons, charge (numerator) needs to be minimized and uncharged (denominator) maximized, so that ratio needs to be small... very low voltage to very high current.

The Experiment
All that is required to test the theory is an axle (bolt, shaft, etc.) set in low-friction ball bearings, where all components conduct electricity (minimal grease or other sources of electrical resistance), a low voltage, high current source, such as an automotive battery, and some jumper cables to connect up the circuit.

The current provided by the battery will saturate the axle with uncharged electrons and the mechanical rotation will orient those electrons to have the same spin direction as the turning axle.

The rotation of the shaft will accelerate until mechanical limits are reached, the current is removed, or it melts.

Note that this is based on gyroscopic principles, not electromagnetic ones, so the polarity of the connection is irrelevant and it will work equally well when spun clockwise or counterclockwise.

See the attached PDF for illustrations and details of the experimental setup (omitted here).

Conclusion
In order for this to function, uncharged electrons must exist as rotating units of space inside the atomic structure and the atomic structure must be in the solid state so the geometry of the time region cannot change. The torque from the spin-aligned electrons is translated directly to the unit space boundary and external structure.

This setup will not work with charged electrons, which are rotational vibrations. The vibration has no net torque, so no rotational energy can be transferred to the mechanical system. It should prove quite a mystery to conventional physics that base electric theory on charge.

In summary, this experiment demonstrates that uncharged electrons behave as predicted by the Reciprocal System and are able to easily explain this axial, gyroscopic acceleration.

1 Beth, Richard A., “Direct Detection of the Angular Momentum of Light”, Phys. Rev. 48, 471–471 (Sep 1935)

2 Larson, Dewey B., Basic Properties of Matter, ISUS, Inc., 1994, p. 104.
Attachments
Experiment-RotatingElectron.pdf
Experiment to demonstrate electron is a rotating unit of space
(535.32 KiB) Downloaded 38 times
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Marinov experiment

Post by Horace » Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:43 pm

This is a very bad experiment because the high current will locally heat up the rings and balls in the ballbearings causing them to expand and provide mechanical propulsion to the shaft.

BTW: Stefan Marinov already did this experiment 20 years ago.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Just another failure of conventional science

Post by bperet » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:36 am

BTW: Stefan Marinov already did this experiment 20 years ago.
Someone emailed me with info on the "ball bearing motor" shortly after I posted this, so it is nice to see it is reproducable.
This is a very bad experiment because the high current will locally heat up the rings and balls in the ballbearings causing them to expand and provide mechanical propulsion to the shaft.
Well, if that's the case, then you should be able to reproduce the experiment WITHOUT electric current, and just heat the bearings with a blow torch. Guess what... IT DOESN'T WORK. The bearings just sieze up from the thermal expansion. Like a lot of the nonsense in conventional astronomy because they have the evolutionary sequence backward, that thermal "explanation" is just a poor excuse to say they don't know what is going on and don't want to admit it.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Resistive heating is more

Post by Horace » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:02 am

Resistive heating is more localized than bulk heating with a torch.

That's why this experiment needs to be redesigned so it cannot be explained by periodic and local thermal expansion of the balls due to electric current commutation.

drwater
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 9:12 pm

Experiment regarding uncharged electrons

Post by drwater » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:14 pm

Bruce,

Not sure ball bearings are necessary - just some means of minimizing friction. I like the concept of your proposed experiment. If you run the numbers, how much torque would you expect? For example, assuming a 1 inch diameter solid copper cylinder one foot long (sorry about the English units - just thinking about something off-the-shelf), and a 12 volt car battery that you would regulate to put out, say, 100 amps, how much torque are we talking about?

I also went and looked at a couple Youtube videos replicating the Marinov motor. It seems highly unlikely that the ball bearings are causing the acceleration due to thermal expansion. Could be some localized electromagnetic forces. However, it does fit your explanation well. Seems like it would be easy to come up with an experiment like you describe, maybe using something other than ball bearings.

DRW

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

I also went and looked at a

Post by bperet » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:16 pm

I also went and looked at a couple Youtube videos replicating the Marinov motor. It seems highly unlikely that the ball bearings are causing the acceleration due to thermal expansion. Could be some localized electromagnetic forces. However, it does fit your explanation well. Seems like it would be easy to come up with an experiment like you describe, maybe using something other than ball bearings.
I have built a couple of these devices to experiment with. Only cost about $10 at the local hardware store. I am using a 220-amp, 6V golf cart battery as a source of power. I recommend trying it for yourself, as it is just plain "freaky" to watch this thing spin--and it spins fast.

I agree it does not appear to be thermal expansion. Common sense tells you that... heat up a ball bearing and it seizes. And the bearings do get hot, but not as hot as the connecting wiring (using car jumper cables). I have also tried it with cylindrical bearings, and they actually work better because of the larger, conductive surface.

The trick is to get a high current into a rotating axle, without using any kind of inductive or magnetic system. I have some thoughts on that, but it will have to wait until resources become available.
Every dogma has its day...

Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Could you compute the

Post by Sun » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:52 pm

Could you compute the theoretical torque here? I strongly suggest to send your paper to some journals if you can compute the theoretical torque and compare with the experimental results.

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

I still think this motion is

Post by Horace » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:30 am

I still think this motion is due to localized momentary heat expansion of the balls. Electric resistive heating is more localized and intermittent than bulk heating with a torch.

When I use commutators at the end of the rod then it does not spin, despite the same amperage of the current flowing in the rod (measured by a clamp-on ammeter).

I did not try axial thrust ballbearings at the ends of the rod yet but I tried dry and mercury wetted commutators.

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Bulk heat expansion is

Post by Horace » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:40 pm

Bulk heat expansion is omnidirectional.

But the pointlike heating at the balls' interfaces with the races, is highly localized and intermittent.

Any phase difference of those inerface points in reference to the angular position of the shaft will create torque.

Remember that the shaft does not experience any torque when the same level of electric current is delivered by commutators at ends of the shaft. You cannot ignore that.

drwater
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 9:12 pm

commutator

Post by drwater » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:01 pm

Horace,

Not sure why you would want to use a commutator. In a classical setup the commutator supplies current to a coil and reverses it periodically to generate torque. If you are talking about just using brushes from a commutator assembly to transfer current to a bulk conductor, that would be more consistent with the experiment proposed by Bruce. Are you just using the brushes or are you also using the commutator rotor part to send current through a coil or coils? Or are you using commutators as bearings and joining all the contact segments to a solid rod in the middle?

Regarding pointlike heating of bearing balls, I have a hard time seeing how the heat dispersion from the points would be rapid enough to cause any significant differential expansion effect in the steel. The coefficient of thermal expansion for steel is 0.00000645in/in/deg F, so it seems to me you would have to have one heck of a temperature differential in just the right phase to get any torque.

Post Reply