If this is the case, then reversing the polarity of the current wouldn't reverse the direction of rotation.
Gravock

Holy F-ING SH*T!!!!!!       Of course the DIRECTION OF ROTATION CHANGES on the magnetic mass,   dummy      


That has no *##&@# bearing on the fact that the charge ENTERS CENTRIPETALLY 



Change the polarity from CW centripetal   to CCW centripetal   (BOTH ARE CENTRIPETAL)...........Yes, the rotation changes


ROFL      How old are you,,....honestly?



Lets look at the diagram again,   (but for you, the FIRST TIME)


Hmmmmmmm  CW centripetal ......... AND  CCW centripetal


Yup, there it is.

So, according to you, the charges flow in the same direction and enters centripetally regardless of the polarity of the current?

Gravock

Centripetal is centripetal ,    CW or CCW

Reverse the polarity,  you REVERSE the POLARITY   (wow, what a stunning conclusion that is!!!!!)    


Hmmmmmmm  Polarity  ,.........does that mean the CHARGE has "reverse polarity"  ENTERING CENTRIPETALLY , AT the  OTHER CENTRIPETAL charge point?


OMFG

  This is why Socrates was happy to drink the Hemlock. 

TA
Maybe we all should hold off on insulting remark's-and i mean all of us. You must understand that the guy's here are here to help(well most anyway). Look at it like this-once all the probable causes are found not to be true,then what is left must be true. Im happy to do these test 1 by 1 ,as requested. And i will do them to the best of my ability. You will now see that 1 by 1, more questions are being raised. the next video ! im sure ! will bring more questions and confusion. We have PW, saying Quote: If this is correct, taping the sides of the neo should reduce the current flow perpendicular to the neo's magnetic axis, reducing or eliminating the torque/electrolyte spin and vortex. MH and Gravoc also agreed with this. This is what we need TA,things to try-this is how we get answer's.

So here is a video that bring's more question's .lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xmwnsCw2BI&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w

Tinman,

Interesting video.  But again, we still have current flow in the presence of a magnetic field, so it is not unreasonable to expect spin.  Can you tell if the torque is reduced with the tape applied (possibly via spin up rate)?  As well, does the spin rate vary with the applied current?

I am more so interested in the bubble vortex difference when using the PM versus EM.  Now that we know that a spin still appears with the neo's sides taped it will be easier to do tests with the EM.  Although the taped neo produced a somewhat different vortex appearance, with smaller multiple vortices, it is possible that these represent something closer to truth that may actually have been masked by the larger overall spin produced via the side torque.  It must also be kept in mind, however, that we still have current flow in the presence of an electrical field, so it is not at all unrealistic to expect spin generation via conventional means.  However, one would also expect a similar result from an electromagnet.

Therefore, a first experiment regarding the EM that might be considered is to modify the core of the EM so that its cross section is similar to the neo, particularly with regard to the poles, and repeat the test.  Was your EM core tubular?  Consider changing the core to a solid one or insert something into the tubular core to make the EM poles more similar to the neo.  Also, it would be wise to use a spring scale or a lift test to determine the current needed to make the EM similar to the PM in strength.  But again, the core cross section should be made similar to the neo before doing so.  Also, make sure the EM coil is electrically isolated from the electrolyte so as not to influence the current path.


Appreciate your time,

PW

Clueless as heck.      SERIOUSLY,  how old are you?


100%  I#$&$($%  WRONG

NO SON,   magnetic  CENTRIPETAL magnetism LEFT from the other side.. leaving the centrifugal,  going ROUND to the other side  AT HEIGHT and speeding UP to the centripetal point at the middle

A TORNADO is centripetal son, it STARTS at the clouds and its speed increases AT THE GROUND POINT (surface of the magnet at dead center)

A BULLWHIP is a type of CENTRIFUGAL,  slow movement at hand, and breaking the sound barrier at the END of the whip.


YELLOW LINES BELOW ARE CENTRIFUGAL........GOING AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE, RETURNING AT CENTER, CENTRIPETALLY, RED ARROWS



You are either PLAYING with me, or genuinely JUST THAT DUMB

See pic below son, THAT is a magnet,   the RED is centripetal , its the END RESULT of the other sides CENTRIFUGAL


thats why its called "magnetic reciprocation"  son.





You said::::::
Centripetal means the charges are flowing from the rim to the axis.


What the FUCKING HELL? ??      Too bad magnetism is POLARIZED = SPATIAL..........   Magnetism is NOT moving just ALONG the surface of "each pole"  , but GOING ROUND , GOING OUT (centrifugal)  and returning to the other side and entering the dead center (CENTRIPETAL)


Two options:
1. Extreme stupidity
2. playing games.


Either 1 or 2 does NOT bode well .

You sure do like to muddy the waters.  Your rebuttal has nothing to do with what I said, lol.

Gravock

Tinman,

Interesting video.  But again, we still have current flow in the presence of a magnetic field, so it is not unreasonable to expect spin.  Can you tell if the torque is reduced with the tape applied (possibly via spin up rate)?  As well, does the spin rate vary with the applied current?

I am more so interested in the bubble vortex difference when using the PM versus EM.  Now that we know that a spin still appears with the neo's sides taped it will be easier to do tests with the EM.  Although the taped neo produced a somewhat different vortex appearance, with smaller multiple vortices, it is possible that these represent something closer to truth that may actually have been masked by the larger overall spin produced via the side torque.  It must also be kept in mind, however, that we still have current flow in the presence of an electrical field, so it is not at all unrealistic to expect spin generation via conventional means.  However, one would also expect a similar result from an electromagnet.

Therefore, a first experiment regarding the EM that might be considered is to modify the core of the EM so that its cross section is similar to the neo, particularly with regard to the poles, and repeat the test.  Was your EM core tubular?  Consider changing the core to a solid one or insert something into the tubular core to make the EM poles more similar to the neo.  Also, it would be wise to use a spring scale or a lift test to determine the current needed to make the EM similar to the PM in strength.  But again, the core cross section should be made similar to the neo before doing so.  Also, make sure the EM coil is electrically isolated from the electrolyte so as not to influence the current path.


Appreciate your time,

PW

Some answers i can give you already PW. The electromagnets cross section is the same as the neo's im using-as seen in a couple of the video's. Also in a couple of the video's,i use a cylinder magnet (hole through the middle) with the same cross section size as the EM's core. The neo still produces the vortex ,but as seen,the electromagnet dose not. The EM's coil power is totally isolated from the power supply. Even when using the battery charger(that has no common ground)to keep the battery voltage up,it is also isolated via the step down transformer-which dosnt have a common neutral(Primary and secondary are two sepperate winding's).

I need to say this once again,as some still dont get it.
I am stating facts on tests i carried out !!AND!! showed on video, on !!MY!! EM-not ruddy Johno's down the road. These are the results of !!MY!! DUT,not some other device. Other EM's may indeed give different results,and so they ruddy well should-because there !!NOT!! the same device.If you want the horse power rating of your mini clubman,do you put a ford mustang on the dyno to get it?. So,i stand by what i said-the EM (my EM) tested in the video,did NOT show the spin effect like the PM did-as seen in the video. So when i said the EM's field seems to be different to that of the PM's field,i was 100% correct-as seen in the video.

The only reductive conclusion one can draw from all the pissing and moaning about your EM experiment is:


1. Theyre pissed that the vortex (fact) premise of PM is true, and (of course) not found in an EM

2. No matter WHAT you do, someone is going to say (just a few) you jacked the experiment (which you didnt, of course)

3. Theyre pissed that you proved a premise of mine with genuine experimentation.,........since they all generally seem to love you, but despise me........  As such, they're pissed your HONEST and unbiased experiments produced results in favor of my premise, and they really arent ticked at anything YOU did, but that it supports my position.


I hope you invent something WONDERFUL and make a LOAD of $$$$ so you and the fam can retire and tell the regular job to SHOVE IT       

I make my experiments as simple as possable,so as others can replicate them with ease. The simple solution would be for some one else to try a differently configured EM,and see how they go. But it looks like it's just going to be me(and you TA)that is spending all the time in the work shop. It would be nice to have at least 1 other experimenter on the job as well.

Ken
I am told you have a video of a test tube filled with your fluid in_ Vortex_ over  a strong magnet
I cannot find it ??


do you have a link?
thx
Chet

Ken
That"s the _money shot_     [expression from the "old days"]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfqNkmqXfn4



Send TinMan some of that and let him make a better vid....


you'll have all the replicators you could want...


You in NYC ATM ?


Thx
Chet