FP Generation

[Joseph Chikva]

They will not pinch without oppositely charged particles.

Without oppositely charged particles doing what, or being where, exactly?

You talk in riddles. Never answer a direct question. There is no 'help' I want from you, why do you keep saying this?

YOU came here with something so grand. Did you do it to show how clever you were, for people to make comments, what!? You're the one who came here for help. If you did not, then you can now exit the way you came knowing that you said all that you could possibly say about it, and then moved on to things that were not even possible to say!

Why did you post your funny 'invention' on this forum? Answer the question directly.

I posted here my funny or so grand invention because waited that here are people who understand fusion at least at minimal level and waited for a little more qualified discussion. But unfortunately I was mistaken. In your face I met here the man who does not know even very simple things.

Regarding discussed issue.
No coherent motion - no current, no current - no magnetic field, no magnetic field - no pinch.
Unidirectional currents attract each other, oppositely directed - repulse.
Moving charged particles may be considered as elementary current producing magnetic field reducing electrostatic repulsive force. But total reduction occurs when v=c.
Inserting oppositely charge particles also reduces repulse and if you insert enough amount together with magnetic attraction you can change repulse on attraction. So, you can get pinch.
That's all. Hope that it would be useful for your education. Good luck.

[Joseph Chikva]

There is no 'help' I want from you, why do you keep saying this?

Because of it

Any 'observing' charge at a relative velocity the same as one of those particles will feel no magnetic field from the one it is travelling with, but a 'full' electric field from it.

That is not truth. See bellow:
Magnetic Field of a Moving Charge
http://academic.mu.edu/phys/matthysd/web004/l0220.htm

Also I advise you to read the rest pages as well.

Also because of the following:

It is self-evident that coherent charges have no pinching magnetic effect on each other.

For many people self-evident that Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around Earth. But that is not so.

May be after that you would a little bit reduce aplomb. But that is not a big tragedy. Instead you will acquire a little bit more knowledge. And it would be good.

[chrismb]

Why did you post your funny 'invention' on this forum? Answer the question directly.

I posted here my funny or so grand invention because waited that here are people who understand fusion at least at minimal level and waited for a little more qualified discussion.

That's half an answer. What sort of discussion did you want? You got a discussion. I was not the only one to point out weaknesses in your understanding of basic electrostatics. So what sort of discussion you want? Just good comments?

I ask you yet again for a simple answer to a straightforward question; why don't like charges pinch on a magnetic plate but you claim mono-energetic like-charges pinch in a beam! Charges on a plate ARE moving, relative to an observer travelling past it.

Why don't you get this elementary bit of relativity? A bunch of like charges moving along at the same speed don't generate a magnetic field on EACH OTHER, they only make a magnetic field in some other inertial frame.

The 'discussions' you seem want are only ones which swoon at your magnificence. Why do you keep discussing what I say when I don't want to be dragged along by this nonsense any more. Just stop saying the things I have said are 'wrong' [else I feel compelled to defend myself - bad character trait, I know, but there it is]. Just get on and discuss YOUR FUNNY INVENTION or PHYSICS or WHATEVER but leave ME out of it!

[Joseph Chikva]

That's half an answer. What sort of discussion did you want? You got a discussion. I was not the only one to point out weaknesses in your understanding of basic electrostatics. So what sort of discussion you want? Just good comments?

I ask you yet again for a simple answer to a straightforward question; why don't like charges pinch on a magnetic plate but you claim mono-energetic like-charges pinch in a beam! Charges on a plate ARE moving, relative to an observer travelling past it.

Why don't you get this elementary bit of relativity? A bunch of like charges moving along at the same speed don't generate a magnetic field on EACH OTHER, they only make a magnetic field in some other inertial frame.

The 'discussions' you seem want are only ones which swoon at your magnificence. Why do you keep discussing what I say when I don't want to be dragged along by this nonsense any more. Just stop saying the things I have said are 'wrong' [else I feel compelled to defend myself - bad character trait, I know, but there it is]. Just get on and discuss YOUR FUNNY INVENTION or PHYSICS or WHATEVER but leave ME out of it!

Good esse.
But claims in that very similar to spells.
Yes, I've got your very valued opinion on "weaknesses" of proposed method.

First that your opinion was Oppenheimer-Philips. I see that you very big expert in nuclear reaction as ensure me that at collision energy optimal for fusion stripping of deuterium nucleus will be observed with birth another isotope of hydrogen with three neutrons. I answered at least at half here but you did not at all on answer: at what cross section that reaction will go?
Please, answer me now before I leave you out as you wish.

Second. Claiming that I do not know the basic electrostatics did you read the link I provided just for you?
If yes, are staying at the same position?
You speak:

A bunch of like charges moving along at the same speed don't generate a magnetic field on EACH OTHER, they only make a magnetic field in some other inertial frame.

And not on non-inertial frame? Or how, Mr. O-P?

Almost all you said are nonsense.

I have not any necessity in very high value communication with you. But in this thread you and not me said that waited comprehension from me.
But you will not get comprehension on nonsense.

Best regards,

[MSimon]

Joseph,

I have been following this for a while. What I take away is

1. Either the language barrier is currently insurmountable.
2. You do not know what you are talking about.

And I must say your attitude doesn't help. You might be able to get away with that here (many do) if your English was better. But it isn't. Have you considered the possibility that you are not explaining yourself well enough rather than your conception that you have enemies here?

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph,

I have been following this for a while. What I take away is

1. Either the language barrier is currently insurmountable.
2. You do not know what you are talking about.

And I must say your attitude doesn't help. You might be able to get away with that here (many do) if your English was better. But it isn't. Have you considered the possibility that you are not explaining yourself well enough rather than your conception that you have enemies here?

Exclude enemies
I see the man who posted here a few thousands times speaking nonsenses. He might be able to get away with that but he touches me declaring that I do no know very basic things. That's not so.
He does not and I do.
I am not guru but issue that we discuss is very simple.
Asking the question about dependency of space charge repulsion force on different frames of reference you told me that you are not an expert too.
You can ask them who knows better than I, you and certainly better than Chris. I am sure that would be easy for you.

[seedload]

Joseph,

I have been following this for a while. What I take away is

1. Either the language barrier is currently insurmountable.
2. You do not know what you are talking about.

And I must say your attitude doesn't help. You might be able to get away with that here (many do) if your English was better. But it isn't. Have you considered the possibility that you are not explaining yourself well enough rather than your conception that you have enemies here?

Exclude enemies
I see the man who posted here a few thousands times speaking nonsenses. He might be able to get away with that but he touches me declaring that I do no know very basic things. That's not so.
He does not and I do.
I am not guru but issue that we discuss is very simple.
Asking the question about dependency of space charge repulsion force on different frames of reference you told me that you are not an expert too.
You can ask them who knows better than I, you and certainly better than Chris. I am sure that would be easy for you.

Since the issue is only important to you in relation to your invention and since you know the subject the best by your own estimation, I would suggest that there is no reason for you to continue the conversation.

Seems to me that this is an endless circle of both parties defending themselves against the other as a simple matter of pride. In that kind of contest, I would declare the first to stop the winner.

I say this even though one of you is clearly right and the other clearly wrong.

regards

[Joseph Chikva]

Since the issue is only important to you in relation to your invention and since you know the subject the best by your own estimation, I would suggest that there is no reason for you to continue the conversation.

Seems to me that this is an endless circle of both parties defending themselves against the other as a simple matter of pride. In that kind of contest, I would declare the first to stop the winner.

I say this even though one of you is clearly right and the other clearly wrong.

regards

No, I am open for criticism.
Yes, I know this issue at almost professional level – at least as deep as I need.
And I am clearly right declaring the following:
• probability of Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction zero or near zero when center-of-mass collision energy optimal for fusion
• unidirectional currents attract each other
• for pinch of oppositely moving through each other and oppositely charged beams where one of which is relativistic the total compensation of space charge is not required
• etc.
Thanks and best regards,

[bcglorf]

Joseph,

I have been following this for a while. What I take away is

1. Either the language barrier is currently insurmountable.
2. You do not know what you are talking about.

And I must say your attitude doesn't help. You might be able to get away with that here (many do) if your English was better. But it isn't. Have you considered the possibility that you are not explaining yourself well enough rather than your conception that you have enemies here?

Exclude enemies
I see the man who posted here a few thousands times speaking nonsenses. He might be able to get away with that but he touches me declaring that I do no know very basic things. That's not so.
He does not and I do.
I am not guru but issue that we discuss is very simple.
Asking the question about dependency of space charge repulsion force on different frames of reference you told me that you are not an expert too.
You can ask them who knows better than I, you and certainly better than Chris. I am sure that would be easy for you.

You need to take what MSimon is saying about the language barrier to heart. I'm not sure where your from, but in North America there are about a million guys who sounds exactly like you spouting what seems like nonsense to anyone that's taken even an undergrad level of Physics. For most of them they end up using words and theories together that are contradictory or simply make no sense in an attempt to explain their perpetual motion invention. Usually it's because they don't understand the subject. In your case it's possible a good deal of the reason it sound like nonsense is that English seems to be a second/third language for you. If you want an English audience familiar with fundamental physics to take you seriously you need to get your language your using straightened out. If you can't be bother to take that effort, then fully expect to be ignored as just another a guy who doesn't know enough about physics to even discuss it. Most folks aren't gonna take the time to figure out if your inability to communicate physics concepts is because you don't understand English or because you don't understand physics.

[rcain]

i have to confess, i have found the diatribes betweeen Joseph and CMB (in particular), quite amusing; the use of 'soviet-english' just added another layer of ironic glaze to the inate humor.

Joseph - would it not be a good idea to start your own thread on (whatever you call it...) - 'The JC Machine/Patent,Theory...(experimental evidence? ). I'm sure you would get much better focus (albeit no less harsh treatment, if he can still be botherd, from Mr OP.).

i sometimes think the forum needs a zoo-keeper rather than admins.

carry on.

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph,

I have been following this for a while. What I take away is

1. Either the language barrier is currently insurmountable.
2. You do not know what you are talking about.

And I must say your attitude doesn't help. You might be able to get away with that here (many do) if your English was better. But it isn't. Have you considered the possibility that you are not explaining yourself well enough rather than your conception that you have enemies here?

Exclude enemies
I see the man who posted here a few thousands times speaking nonsenses. He might be able to get away with that but he touches me declaring that I do no know very basic things. That's not so.
He does not and I do.
I am not guru but issue that we discuss is very simple.
Asking the question about dependency of space charge repulsion force on different frames of reference you told me that you are not an expert too.
You can ask them who knows better than I, you and certainly better than Chris. I am sure that would be easy for you.

You need to take what MSimon is saying about the language barrier to heart. I'm not sure where your from, but in North America there are about a million guys who sounds exactly like you spouting what seems like nonsense to anyone that's taken even an undergrad level of Physics. For most of them they end up using words and theories together that are contradictory or simply make no sense in an attempt to explain their perpetual motion invention. Usually it's because they don't understand the subject. In your case it's possible a good deal of the reason it sound like nonsense is that English seems to be a second/third language for you. If you want an English audience familiar with fundamental physics to take you seriously you need to get your language your using straightened out. If you can't be bother to take that effort, then fully expect to be ignored as just another a guy who doesn't know enough about physics to even discuss it. Most folks aren't gonna take the time to figure out if your inability to communicate physics concepts is because you don't understand English or because you don't understand physics.

Thank you.
Yes, English is my third language.
But I do not know English so badly that can not understand when guy speaks nonsense about possibility for example of reaction that will not occur.
Or when he declares that two parallelly moving particles do not interact each other magnetically. And if anyone will not become interested in my posts - good luck. He can simply ignore my posts. No problem.

[bcglorf]

But I do not know English so badly that can not understand when guy speaks nonsense about possibility for example of reaction that will not occur.

But you do speak/type it poorly enough that your sentence here can be parsed in multiple contradictory ways, and it is completely obscure which you might mean.

My physics background taps out at the undergrad level, and English is my first language. Even with that, the exact meaning of English language words describing high level physics is difficult for me. Basic electric and magnetic interactions between particles is simple enough, but fusion, quantum theory and plasma behavior quickly have their own unique use of the language.

With all due respect, it either English or fundamental physics is the barrier in communication between yourself and chrismb. I do KNOW that chrismb understands basic physics as well as the English language very well, putting the ball in your court so to speak. If you want to rule out your English as the barrier, that only leaves the physics. I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and call it English, but I'm really not vested in this at all.

[Joseph Chikva]

i have to confess, i have found the diatribes betweeen Joseph and CMB (in particular), quite amusing; the use of 'soviet-english' just added another layer of ironic glaze to the inate humor.

Joseph - would it not be a good idea to start your own thread on (whatever you call it...) - 'The JC Machine/Patent,Theory...(experimental evidence? ). I'm sure you would get much better focus (albeit no less harsh treatment, if he can still be botherd, from Mr OP.).

i sometimes think the forum needs a zoo-keeper rather than admins.

carry on.

You call that "harsh treatment"?
You need zoo-keeper?
I see how here discussed physics. And who discuss in general.
Thanks.

[Joseph Chikva]

But I do not know English so badly that can not understand when guy speaks nonsense about possibility for example of reaction that will not occur.

But you do speak/type it poorly enough that your sentence here can be parsed in multiple contradictory ways, and it is completely obscure which you might mean.

My physics background taps out at the undergrad level, and English is my first language. Even with that, the exact meaning of English language words describing high level physics is difficult for me. Basic electric and magnetic interactions between particles is simple enough, but fusion, quantum theory and plasma behavior quickly have their own unique use of the language.

With all due respect, it either English or fundamental physics is the barrier in communication between yourself and chrismb. I do KNOW that chrismb understands basic physics as well as the English language very well, putting the ball in your court so to speak. If you want to rule out your English as the barrier, that only leaves the physics. I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and call it English, but I'm really not vested in this at all.

Nobody who really involved in fusion program never consider quantum phenomena. You need not Gamov or other very respectful people. Simply you need the proper collision energy, number density and enough confinement.
Chris do not know how, where and when he may use he have ever read.
As I said earlier his knowledge useful only for filling crossword puzzles.
He declares things that impossible (Oppenheimer-Philips), he heard about relativistic nature of magnetism and very proud with that but do not know about relativism at all, etc.

[rcain]

Joseph - why are you dragging us all in to your (now personal) disputes.

just move on. please. ignore whomsoever, if it pleases you.