Experiment Implying Vacuum EM-Field SuperpositionDate: 6/11/2011

According to the magnetic modeling software FEMM, which applies the laws of electrodynamics to magnetic circuits, two coils at right angles to each other and sharing a common centroid, when both energized, create a sort of transformer in which the current from one coil affects currents in the other coil.

However, a simple experiment shows that this is inaccurate.

To perform the experiment, a coil is wound upon a cube. Then another coil is would upon the same cube, but displaced by 90 degrees. Both coils are energized and the induced currents are measured.

Although perhaps cumbersome to the reader, I will now insert a quotation from the source of the idea for this experiment because it provides a clear explanation of the experiment.

Below the quotation are some images and figures from a replication of this experiment.

To see the referenced figures found within this quotation and to view the entire article describing other aspects and conclusions of this experiment, please visit the link below. For convenience, I have appended the text of the article to the bottom of this document. There are animated GIFs at the bottom of the link below which I cannot include in this PDF.

Source: http://electropub.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/gadenken-experiment/

< ---- Begin Quotation ---- >

We connect each biaxial coil to its own, separate source of current. In this example we use two identical batteries. In series with each coil and its current source is a 1:1 transformer [Fig. 4] for a total of two separate 1:1 transformers.

Figure 4

One transformer’s open secondary is connected to a function generator of moderate power and suitable impedance. A sine wave, say of 10 kHz is applied. This serves to modulate the current through one coil on the cube, impressing a small sinusodial variation on the applied current while the average current is unaffected. The second 1:1 transformer’s open secondary is connected to an oscilloscope, so we can monitor changes in current through the second coil. Anything induced on this second, equally powered coil on the cube will register on the scope. Now the distinction becomes more obvious. It is easy to visualize that there can be no coupling (cos 90′ = 0.000_), and the oscilloscope reads a flat line, disregarding stray electrostatic coupling which is an unrelated factor in this thought experiment. Each coil is producing a magnetic vector, and a compass inside the cube would still hold diagonally since it can’t respond to 10 kHz very well. So, the compass indicates a diagonal magnetic vector, but if there were actually a diagonal magnetic vector present (as the popular idea of vacuum addition would require), there would be heavy cross coupling between the coils. (My rudimentary calculations indicate that coupling would be 0.5 times what you’d see if the coils’ axes were parallel, having one wound on top of the other like a transformer. Cos 45′ * cos 45′ = 0.5) But no coupling is present at all – and vacuum addition, which is commonly accepted, would exhibit coupling! The current variation in the driven coil on the cube (the one connected to the function generator) would modulate both the vector angle and the magnitude of the supposedly diagonal “sum vector”. That would be just like moving a diagonally oriented magnet inside the cube; that “sum” vector is not anywhere near to perpendicular to the other

(sensing) coil on the cube, so induction would still occur and prove that vectors add in space. This is obviously not the case. If we reduced that 10 kHz signal to 1 Hz, the compass needle would sway, deviating back and forth from the 45 degree orientation. That would seem to imply that the “diagonal sum vector” – which you can see on a sim program, below – is moving. Still of course there is no cross coupling, indicating that such a sum vector is a conceptual artifact.In the real world, with a compass in the center and slow AC excitation, there will be some tiny cross coupling, between the two coils displaced at 90′. However, remove the compass and it disappears – the cross coupling there is caused by the magnetism of the moving compass needle itself, like a generator armature! (This helps illustrate how only mass can operate on like fields in vacuo, additively or otherwise).This doesn’t make sense. In a computer animation, moving a magnet or altering the coil currents can produce the same “moving” flux picture. However, only a moving magnet will induce anything; altering coil currents, in this setup, moves the flux lines without anything being induced. Obviously then, our computer simulations, as a product of what we have assumed, are in error.Figure 5 is an animated gif showing the “flux lines” in and around the cube when the current in one of its coils is varied, as a vertical cross section of the cube. The animation is made of four frames; the current in one coil stays at 10 amps through all 4 frames and the current in the other varies [7-10-13-10], as if a 6A RMS AC wave were impressed on the DC current. You may see that the flux constructively (not oppositively) “cuts” all the conductors in the diagram – this flux cutting must induce emf, and we’re not seeing any emf here, in our experiment.We can therefore draw the conclusion that if magnetic flux lines could move or repel – or affect, at any rate – other magnetic flux lines in vacuum (munought) space, that the coupling of two coils at 90 degrees would be nonzero in the presence of a DC current bias, as this computer animation infers. Since in an experimental situation this is not the case, we can draw the opposite conclusion – that flux lines do not affect each other in munought space. Our measuring instruments (even a simple magnetic compass) may indicate field addition in that space – but we must remember, as Dr. Feynmann pointed out, that what we are looking at is a compass, and not the potentials. The addition is not in the vacuum, it’s in the mass of the compass needle.Figure 6 shows more closely what’s going on. In this animation, the “fields” of each coil are shown superimposed. One of the fields is modulated with AC on its DC bias, as in the experiment. From this view, it can be seen that the fields do not interact – as our experiment shows.

< ---- End Quotation ---- >

Replication of the experimentThe point of my replication of the experiment was to see it for my own eyes. I have seen it and will provide the data below for anyone who is interested.

Photograph of setup. It is physically reversed when compared with the circuit diagram. The function generator is on the right and the oscilloscope is on the right. The cube coil is in the middle.

Photograph of coil

Frequency Generator: The operating frequency was 10kHz. This was provided by a signal generator and amplified by a stereo amplifier.Battery: UB1280 lead acid batteries were used. 12V, 8Ah.Core: a cube, each side being 16mm. A dice wrapped in electrical tape was used. Cube windings: Each coil is made of 32 windings of AWG 30 wire.Toroidal transformers: Each 1:1 transformer is a single layer of AWG 24 wire wound on an Amidon FT-240-61 core and split in half so that the primary and secondary contain and equal number of turns.*Changes to circuit (neither change affects the basic operation of the circuit): - The first change in the circuit was to add a 30 ohm resistance in series with each of the batteries to limit the battery-supplied current to around 400mA. - The second change was to add a 5 ohm resistor in series with the audio amplifier to provide an adequate impedance to the amplifier.

Test 1Primary circuit: When the circuit was hooked up as shown, the current in the primary circuit varied between 250mA-400mA-550mA. Oscilloscope probes are across the 30 ohm resistance in series with the battery.

-Oscilloscope settings: 5V/div 20 microseconds/div

Secondary Circuit: The secondary circuit read 2mV of what looked like noise on my oscilloscope (which reads to 1mV). There was very little output.

Oscilloscope attached to the secondary of the toroidal transformer.

-Oscilloscope setting: 1 mV/div 20 microseconds / div

Additional Testing

To see what the coupling would be if the 2nd coil were parallel to the primary coil, instead of perpendicular, I wound an identical third parallel coil on the cube, disconnected the perpendicular coil from the circuit, attached the new parallel coil into the circuit, and measured the induced current. It varied from 398mA-400mA-402mA, inducing about 2mA current on that parallel coil. The output toroidal transformer measured about .2 volts peak to peak. So, as expected, there was a clear induction of current on the secondary wound in parallel.

-Oscilloscope Settings:.1v/div20 uS/div

Conclusion:

The result of this experiment indicates that the vacuum does not perform linear vector operations.

Original Article, with a posted reply email at the beginning.

Gedanken Experiment Implying Vacuum EM-Field Superposition

Monday, May 21, 2001Re: [ou-builders] A Gedankenexperiment Implying Vacuum EM-Field SuperpositionHi Keith and everyone,I have not much time to write. I am sorry the gedanken-thing keeps posting to the list, this is embarrassing. I am not causing it willfully. I have deleted the file from this computer and archived it – let’s see if it posts again. I’m not fishing for comments because few people seem to understand the importance of what I wrote anyway. Am I overestimating the consequences of the error causing our computer models (as extensions of the math we routinely use) to show horribly fictitious results, even under simple circumstances?I’m not trying to say “check it out, the vacuum is linear”. My argument is that it doesn’t perform linear vector operations, field-additive or otherwise. I am trying to shout out that The only similar-field-vector operators are materials. One of the illustrations I provided, I don’t feel was looked at with the kind of scrutiny I would appreciate. I have reattached it to this email, risking the reader’s patience, so I can make my point hopefully clearer and justify the time I spent writing this for what I thought could be my peers’ benefit.Please have another look. This is a FEMM simulation of a sugarcube (munought core) wound with two coils, displaced 90 degrees to each other, and sharing a common centroid. The small squares outlining the diamond shape of the sugar cube in cross section are the conductors, also in cross section. You can see their are four diagonal rows of conductor cross sections, one for each Cartesian quadrant. Quadrants 1 & 3 (1:30 and 7:30, for an hour hand on a clock) represent the forward and return paths of one coil’s windings; quadrants 2 & 4 represent the other coil, likewise.One coil carries a fixed current of 10A. The other coil carries a current that varies over the 4 frames of the animation in the pattern [6-10-13-10]. You can see that the flux picture inside the sugarcube illustrates MOVING FLUX LINES. These moving flux lines that FEMM draws cut EVERY conductor on the cube, constructively inducing emf in each of them. Therefore, the 10A current in the unmodulated coil has flux cutting it (as shown by the FEMM animation), so we will see a modulation in that 10A current, which is proportional to the EMF induced (and the circuit impedance supplying the 10A). This is what FEMM says will happen. FEMM is an automated extension of our electromagnetic laws, so this is also what our electromagnetic laws say will happen. So far as I’m aware, it’s all in error.Feel free to replicate the experiment and observe that not only is space linear, but it’s so linear it doesn’t even add fields the way FEMM (made of our supposed laws) illustrates it that will. The steady 10A coil, on the bench sees absolutely *no* emf impressed upon it, disregarding strays. Replication isn’t even necessary – the coupling coefficient between

two coils (assuming the centroids of each one’s area occupy one common point) is the cosine of their angular displacement. How can that simple, tried-and-true math reconcile with our boiled-down Maxwellian algebra? Only one case can be right, in the example using the DC bias I give here.FEMM says the thing is more or less a transformer. An actual experiment shows that this is not a transformer at all, but rather a kind of rather effective isolator. The only way the experimental result can be justified is by removing the assumptive summation-of-field-vectors that FEMM and our laws seem to be more or less founded on. Then, we get results that match our experiment - results that don’t match our so-called electromagnetic laws. Hopefully the weight of my point becomes clearer? I’m open to being *proven* wrong (beyond merely “telling me so”), but I’d like to know what I said has been understood, first. To everyone else who was kind enough to respond, thank you, and I’ll address each response individually when I have more time. Thank you, everyone for your attention here. You bet there are practical applications and consequences.GrahamA Gedankenexperiment Implying Vacuum EM-Field SuperpositionA Gedankenexperiment Implying Vacuum EM-Field SuperpositionThis article describes an easy way to observe a distinction between the effects of vacuum potential addition and vacuum potential superposition. (Aside: Normally, potentials in vacuum space are referred to as ‘fields’. However, in keeping with Richard Feynmann’s incisive observation, only the potentials for fields to exist are present in a vacuum, until some form of mass is introduced to make the equation F=ma nonzero; a “field” is mathematically quantified as its force on a particle. It would be more correct to write this document referring to vacuum potentials, but I will use the term ‘field’ here because the word is more familiar. This might be misleading anyway – we tend to think of magnetic fields in terms of “field lines”, and it’s hard to imagine those lines crossing, in superposition. Flux lines can never cross, of course – as I see it, their nonexistence precludes that! I’ll use the erroneous ‘field’ model here, at the admitted risk of confusing roadmap with asphalt.)In preparation for the results of this experiment, a short background is given. There are two schools of thought: - One assumes that, in a given volume, multiple vectors of like EM energy are additive in vacuo. These combined energies are exhibited as a single net vector representing the sum of the constituent fields’ directions in their given magnitudes. That is to say, the vacuum itself performs linear vector addition, (or linear transposition, in the case of EM fields with “displacement current”), returning the “sum” vector as a single field of force for a given field type in a region. In this model, dissimilar fields can superpose (E and B fields crossing, for instance), but like fields are not allowed to, and will merge.- A contrary view is that multiple vectors of EM energy do not add in vacuo, having no way to interact until a material is presented that can accommodate some interaction. This is to say, all fields are superimposed upon one another in vacuo — and the vacuum (“space”) itself, as the basic ability to accommodate energy, is incapable of like-vector operation, additive or otherwise. In this view, materials are responsible for like-vector interaction, not the vacuum itself. So, in this second model, two B fields can superimpose just as well as an E and B field are normally considered to. The only true, extant “vacuum

operation” is the vector and form transpostion of B to E, for example, wherever a field’s rate of change causes displacement. This is a relativistic concern (as Einstein first pointed out), and will not be treated here. Obviously, these two modes of interpretation are incompatible. B lines must either add algebraically (that is, affect each other) or superpose (not affecting each other). It is difficult to imagine both models being correct. It should be noted that if the commonly accepted principle of vacuum field addition is incorrect, that such artifacts as “magnetic lines of force” must be reinterpreted as mere contrivances, incorrectly representing the fundamental action. Such mental pictures may remain useful to some extent, but can no longer be sincerely regarded as first order effects. For example, one magnet “bending” another magnet’s lines of force [Fig. 1], whether by attraction or repulsion, would no longer be the true picture of the interaction. Each magnet would express its own, undisturbed field of influence, and those fields would not be capable of “bending” each other, because that would require the vacuum to perform an operation on the vectors that it is inherently incapable of performing. In the vaccum state the two fields would merely be superposed, as if two similar transparencies, depicting magnets emitting undisturbed “field lines” were laid atop one another on an overhead projector, some distance apart yet meshing [Fig. 2]. (The physical forces, in either case are equal; caculation may prove it better than I can write. In fact, even computer models like FEMM calculate “conjugate”, or superposed forces before they sum the vectors into a single set of “flux lines”).Either school of thought presents an entirely different picture of field interaction, or the natural lack thereof in a space where no matter is present. Most presumptions for interpretation hold these views as mutually exclusive. To test what actually occurs when two fields of like influence (similar energy) share the same space, we first construct a model that generates such an effect [Fig. 3]. This is drawn as a cube, of arbitrary size. I call this the “sugarcube experiment” because that is what I first used as a core.Two coils are wound upon the cube, the axis of each being displaced at right angles to the other. To maintain simplicity in this example, 2 of the possible 3 spatially orthogonal vectors of action are employed. The situation would not change if the third vector were employed, so it is disregarded here as an extraneous condition. It is given that both coils are wound equal to each other; that their conductor gauges and number of turns are equal. The only difference to be considered here is that of physical orientation. If both coils are excited with equal currents, perhaps in series connection, a compass in the center of the cube (assuming for the moment it is visible) will deflect diagonally toward the corners of the cube, displaced 45 degrees from the axis of each coil. This is a basic demonstration (or cause) for our assumption that the space around the compass is adding the two coils’ fields, since it is their vector sum which is apparent on the compass needle. (It should be noted however, that if the vectors truly added, the magnetic influence or torque on the compass needle would be about twice that given by each coil considered separately, as the additive sum of both their fluxes now redirected diagonally. However, the influence or torque on the needle is 1.414 times the effect given by each coil relative

to its own axis, or cos 45′ + cos 45′, indicating no diagonal addition of vector energy in vacuo, but only on the compass needle as it reacts to the individual fields crossing it diagonally.) There is a clearer distinction than this which can be made, however, which indicates the total absence of vacuum vector addition without need for mathematical explainations. The compass is removed and set aside. For purposes of illustration a third, larger coil is introduced, whose axis is diagonal to each coil on the cube (i.e., parallel with the compass needle’s former orientation.) The cube with the two biaxial coils is placed inside this new, larger coil.Of course, an AC current in this larger coil will again couple to either coil on the diagonal cube 0.707 times as well as it would if aligned directly on the axis of either, say if you turned the cube. (cos 45′ = 0.707, cos 0′ = 1.0, angles here indicating divergence from parallel.) A single-vector field produced diagonally to the cube (from our third coil) will induce current in both coils on the cube, each oriented at 45 degrees to this field. That seems to agree with the principle of automatic vector addition. This leads to the point of our experiment. We return to the cube itself as illustrated in Fig. 3. We connect each biaxial coil to its own, separate source of current. In this example we use two identical batteries. In series with each coil and its current source is a 1:1 transformer [Fig. 4] for a total of two separate 1:1 transformers. One transformer’s open secondary is connected to a function generator of moderate power and suitable impedance. A sine wave, say of 10 kHz is applied. This serves to modulate the current through one coil on the cube, impressing a small sinusodial variation on the applied current while the average current is unaffected. The second 1:1 transformer’s open secondary is connected to an oscilloscope, so we can monitor changes in current through the second coil. Anything induced on this second, equally powered coil on the cube will register on the scope. Now the distinction becomes more obvious. It is easy to visualize that there can be no coupling (cos 90′ = 0.000_), and the oscilloscope reads a flat line, disregarding stray electrostatic coupling which is an unrelated factor in this thought experiment. Each coil is producing a magnetic vector, and a compass inside the cube would still hold diagonally since it can’t respond to 10 kHz very well. So, the compass indicates a diagonal magnetic vector, but if there were actually a diagonal magnetic vector present (as the popular idea of vacuum addition would require), there would be heavy cross coupling between the coils. (My rudimentary calculations indicate that coupling would be 0.5 times what you’d see if the coils’ axes were parallel, having one wound on top of the other like a transformer. Cos 45′ * cos 45′ = 0.5) But no coupling is present at all – and vacuum addition, which is commonly accepted, would exhibit coupling! The current variation in the driven coil on the cube (the one connected to the function generator) would modulate both the vector angle and the magnitude of the supposedly diagonal “sum vector”. That would be just like moving a diagonally oriented magnet inside the cube; that “sum” vector is not anywhere near to perpendicular to the other (sensing) coil on the cube, so induction would still occur and prove that vectors add in space. This is obviously not the case.

If we reduced that 10 kHz signal to 1 Hz, the compass needle would sway, deviating back and forth from the 45 degree orientation. That would seem to imply that the “diagonal sum vector” – which you can see on a sim program, below – is moving. Still of course there is no cross coupling, indicating that such a sum vector is a conceptual artifact.In the real world, with a compass in the center and slow AC excitation, there will be some tiny cross coupling, between the two coils displaced at 90′. However, remove the compass and it disappears – the cross coupling there is caused by the magnetism of the moving compass needle itself, like a generator armature! (This helps illustrate how only mass can operate on like fields in vacuo, additively or otherwise).This doesn’t make sense. In a computer animation, moving a magnet or altering the coil currents can produce the same “moving” flux picture. However, only a moving magnet will induce anything; altering coil currents, in this setup, moves the flux lines without anything being induced. Obviously then, our computer simulations, as a product of what we have assumed, are in error.Figure 5 is an animated gif showing the “flux lines” in and around the cube when the current in one of its coils is varied, as a vertical cross section of the cube. The animation is made of four frames; the current in one coil stays at 10 amps through all 4 frames and the current in the other varies [7-10-13-10], as if a 6A RMS AC wave were impressed on the DC current. You may see that the flux constructively (not oppositively) “cuts” all the conductors in the diagram – this flux cutting must induce emf, and we’re not seeing any emf here, in our experiment.We can therefore draw the conclusion that if magnetic flux lines could move or repel – or affect, at any rate – other magnetic flux lines in vacuum (munought) space, that the coupling of two coils at 90 degrees would be nonzero in the presence of a DC current bias, as this computer animation infers. Since in an experimental situation this is not the case, we can draw the opposite conclusion – that flux lines do not affect each other in munought space. Our measuring instruments (even a simple magnetic compass) may indicate field addition in that space – but we must remember, as Dr. Feynmann pointed out, that what we are looking at is a compass, and not the potentials. The addition is not in the vacuum, it’s in the mass of the compass needle.Figure 6 shows more closely what’s going on. In this animation, the “fields” of each coil are shown superimposed. One of the fields is modulated with AC on its DC bias, as in the experiment. From this view, it can be seen that the fields do not interact – as our experiment shows.Really, this animation is only a pseudo case since the fields of the individual conductors in each coil are still summed by the computer. The truest representation would be an overlay of each conductor’s field, in a multitude of concentric circles reminiscent of the old “drop rocks in a pond” example. (However, the computer time necessary to produce such an image is beyond what I have at my disposal).When the truly superposed view is taken (with no field additions assumed anywhere), many inobvious things become clear.First, the statement that gross EM “fields” are really the product of wave interference becomes visually apparent. Viewing this has provided me with a rough visual format in which to picture things like the Whittaker work that Tom Bearden has so often referenced.

Second, bifilar coils (with each conductor-cross-section’s field shown superposed on all others) show a pattern in the magnetic-field cancellation that is not visible when assuming (or modeling) the standard munought field summation. The field circles around the conductors, though their energy still cancels to zero, form distinct patterns of interference. If the bifilar coil is a cylindrical coil, the primary pattern in the interference forms a straight line on the axis of the coil’s bore. That is interesting, because I’ve had properly excited bifilar coils exhibit just this kind of ray-like emission that is evident once you draw all the fields in superposition. In addition to this, there are other minor patterns of interference divergent in cones and discs around the coil (depending on how it is wound) – and I have detected those as well. (And I should mention, again, the fact that my “detector” was simply an odd sensation from a Nd-magnet in my hand; I presently have no nonliving detector. I have done double blind tests with unsuspecting “lay people”, however, that confirm all my results).My personal conclusion is that it doesn’t really matter if magnetic (or electric) fields truly do, or do not, superimpose in munought (or, to first order, vacuum) space. The importance to me is practical, in that merely assuming superposition can answer questions that vector addition leaves invisible or incorrect. For me, that’s proof enough that field superposition is real. It’s interesting to me that, with all the whining about our electrical “laws” being so old and based on a fluid aether, that more current views in quantum physics do not only imply, but depend upon field superposition for accurate results. Quantum laws have yet to be expressed in our EM equations and “laws”, presumably because formulation is very difficult. One of the boundaries in the way of easy reformulation may be a conceptual shift. Quantum rules are superposed and our standard (and admittely outdated) EM rules do not allow that. The evidence, if I am any judge, is in favor of superposition, and in favor of the opinion that our current models are more limiting than reality.