Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions  (Read 515203 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1290 on: January 18, 2015, 05:40:39 AM »

Quote
Your statement is wrong.  Most electromagnets have an electric field.  Superconducting electromagnets have no electric field.  What difference in magnetic behavior can you demonstrate between an electromagnet and a permanent magnet?
Well after repeated tries,i will let you describe the difference in way of a question.
Dose an electromagnet need a power supply to produce magnetic fields?. Dose a PM need a power input to produce magnetic fields?.

Quote
Because when comparing behaviors we need only know what is the same and what is different between those behaviors.
Couldnt be more wrong. Reserch is required to show as to why the two behaviors are different. Only when that understanding come apparent can we move forward.

Quote
Now you have pegged the Archer Quinn memorial bull shit meter
I think it is more a case that you have no room for change Mark,even though your theory cannot explain the force a magnetic field applies on a magnetically active material.

 
Quote
Again you are being non-responsiven .  I asked you to show that your self-proclaimed revolution in science can predict an ordinary behavior correctly as the science you disdain is easily able to do.
Once again,another faulse accusation(Again you are being non-responsiven),and also backwards.
As i have asked time and time again-how,why and what dose your science say is the force that reacts against a magnetically active material,dose it have mass?-if not,how dose it apply a force?.
And here i present a theory that accounts for that force,what,how and why it reacts against a magnetically active object-and yet you dispell it as rubbish,even though your modle cannot account/explain  the force applied to a magnetically active object by a magnetic field.

Quote
I have asked only that you apply your ideas to a simple problem that conventional theory has been used to accurately solve for many decades.
A theory is not a solution or a complete understanding. Quote: In the world of science, however, a theory is a broad explanation of a phenomenon or phenomena that is testable and falsifiable.

Quote
Electrons are attracted to protons by electrostatic force.  Are you now disputing this and claiming that it is magnetic?  Seriously, what are you drinking
I am using your water hypothesis-what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you saying that the atom is not magnetic? Dose not the electrostatic charge show exacactly the same principles of my field theory,and what,how and why a magnetic field exerts a force on magnetically active materials.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1291 on: January 18, 2015, 07:19:34 AM »
Well after repeated tries,i will let you describe the difference in way of a question.
Dose an electromagnet need a power supply to produce magnetic fields?. Dose a PM need a power input to produce magnetic fields?.
Just as hard magnetic material retains its magnetization once magnetized without additional input energy, a superconducting electromagnet retains its magnetization without additional input energy.
Quote

Couldnt be more wrong. Reserch is required to show as to why the two behaviors are different. Only when that understanding come apparent can we move forward.
First there has to be an observed difference in behaviors.
Quote

I think it is more a case that you have no room for change Mark,even though your theory cannot explain the force a magnetic field applies on a magnetically active material.
This refusal to acknowledge explanations offered time and again is getting quite tiresome.  Are you interested in finding out what is real, or just deflecting examination of the ideas that you have developed?
Quote

 Once again,another faulse accusation(Again you are being non-responsiven),and also backwards.
Kindly point to the on point response then.
Quote

As i have asked time and time again-how,why and what dose your science say is the force that reacts against a magnetically active material,dose it have mass?-if not,how dose it apply a force?.
The electric force does not depend on mass.  Neither do either the strong or weak nuclear forces.  The formal explanation for magnetic force in modern physics comes from application of special relativity to moving electric charges, which are subject to the electric force.
Quote

And here i present a theory that accounts for that force,what,how and why it reacts against a magnetically active object-and yet you dispell it as rubbish,even though your modle cannot account/explain  the force applied to a magnetically active object by a magnetic field.
Again it is getting quite tiresome when I have explained this multiple times.  I have offered an experiment proposal that would delineate between the view you espouse and conventional physics.
Quote

A theory is not a solution or a complete understanding. Quote: In the world of science, however, a theory is a broad explanation of a phenomenon or phenomena that is testable and falsifiable.
I am using your water hypothesis-what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you saying that the atom is not magnetic? Dose not the electrostatic charge show exacactly the same principles of my field theory,and what,how and why a magnetic field exerts a force on magnetically active materials.
For a testable theory you seem to be avoiding discussion of the proposed experiment.  You assert that your theory is superior but decline to show that it is able to make the same testable predictions of the established theory that is deadly accurate, but you claim is flawed compared to yours.  You assert claims that have been irrefutably disproven by laboratory experiments:  For example you falsly claim that charged particles attract uncharged particles.  My patience is waning.  If you want to get down to cases, offer comment on your expectation of the experiment diagrammed below according to your theory.  My expectations according to my interpretation of conventional theory is shown.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1292 on: January 18, 2015, 08:11:59 AM »
Quote
Just as hard magnetic material retains its magnetization once magnetized without additional input energy, a superconducting electromagnet retains its magnetization without additional input energy
.
They have room temperature super conductors?

Quote
First there has to be an observed difference in behaviors.This refusal to acknowledge explanations offered time and again is getting quite tiresome
Is the observed difference not apparent-one needs a power input and one dose not. If there is no room teperature super conductor,then the power input is in the way of cooling.

 
Quote
Are you interested in finding out what is real, or just deflecting examination of the ideas that you have developed?Kindly point to the on point response then
.

I am very interested in finding out what is real,but the problem i have is those that appose the idea because it dosnt follow theoretical science. Here we have a situation where i offer a theory that explains how,what and why a magnetic field can exert a force on a magnetically active material,but you insist that i follow or believe a theory that cannot explain how,what or why a magnetic field applies a force on a magnetically active material. I show you that this works in the very same way as static charge attraction/repulsion,but you dismiss it just as easly.

Quote
The electric force does not depend on mass.  Neither do either the strong or weak nuclear forces.  The formal explanation for magnetic force in modern physics comes from application of special relativity to moving electric charges, which are subject to the electric force.Again it is getting quite tiresome when I have explained this multiple times

Are you saying that the PM has an electric force,or maybe a nuclear force?. If it has neither of these two,then how is the magnetic force explained?.

 
Quote
For example you falsly claim that charged particles attract uncharged particles
I am unaware of any such claim. My claim was that either positively or negatively charged particles are attracted to neutrally charged materials(materials with unseperated charges),or particles of opposite charges.

 
Quote
I have offered an experiment proposal that would delineate between the view you espouse and conventional physics.For a testable theory you seem to be avoiding discussion of the proposed experiment.
I have not avoided anything,in fact,the opposite is true. I asked how one would set up this test,and i also asked how my theoretical modle would show different results to that of the current magnetic modle-->and i got no reply on the later.

Quote
You assert that your theory is superior but decline to show that it is able to make the same testable predictions of the established theory that is deadly accurate,
I have given you examples of how my modle work's-the comb and paper,static charge attraction and repulsion. And once again,your deadly accurate theory cannot explain as to what or how a magnetic field can apply a force on a magnetically active material-->and once again,my theoretical modle dose.

Quote
My patience is waning.  If you want to get down to cases, offer comment on your expectation of the experiment diagrammed below according to your theory.  My expectations according to my interpretation of conventional theory is shown.
I know what you mean. It is often very hard to get a horse to drink,even though you can quite easly leed it to water. I see a diagram that shows electromagnets-once again,i am dealing with PM's. Can you redraw your diagram useing PM's insted of electromagnet's,and then tell me why my theory would be any different(show anything different in the test) to that of the conventional theory.

I am begining to see why man is still stuck with the inefficient internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels,that pollute our planet. ::)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1293 on: January 18, 2015, 08:28:46 AM »
.
They have room temperature super conductors?
Do magnets have to work at room temperature.  You're special pleadings are getting silly.
Quote
Is the observed difference not apparent-one needs a power input and one dose not. If there is no room teperature super conductor,then the power input is in the way of cooling.
Quote
See above.
Quote

 .

I am very interested in finding out what is real,but the problem i have is those that appose the idea because it dosnt follow theoretical science. Here we have a situation where i offer a theory that explains how,what and why a magnetic field can exert a force on a magnetically active material,but you insist that i follow or believe a theory that cannot explain how,what or why a magnetic field applies a force on a magnetically active material.
That is utter BS.  I am really tired of this crap from you.  I have very patiently asked you question after question to get you to articulate your ideas and distill them down to where we can conduct experiments and you just keep repeating this insulting shit.  In the past dozen or so exchanges it has been a matter of pulling teeth to get you to make a statement that is not already disproven by countless experiments and stick with it.  Note this nonsense where you insist first that all electromagnets must consume power, then when that doesn't fly you resort to more special pleadings concerning temperature or whether the magnet can go into a toy or not.  In all of this you have failed to state any magnetic difference between EMs and PMs.  I am about done putting up with this.
Quote
I show you that this works in the very same way as static charge attraction/repulsion,but you dismiss it just as easly.
I have done no such thing, I have asked you specific questions such as how these "magnetic charges" form across a singularity and appear to repel away to each other at the point of creation while accelerating towards each other at the same time.  You have not answered this with any kind of explanation that makes any sense.  You have instead fought tooth and nail to try and claim that there is a fundamental difference between EMs and PMs without articulating any magnetic difference.
Quote

Are you saying that the PM has an electric force,or maybe a nuclear force?. If it has neither of these two,then how is the magnetic force explained?.
The conventional explanation of a PM is that a majority of the atoms are electron spin aligned.  At the macro level the electric and nuclear forces are confined to the individual atoms.
Quote

 I am unaware of any such claim. My claim was that either positively or negatively charged particles are attracted to neutrally charged materials(materials with unseperated charges),or particles of opposite charges.
Neutrons are not neutral?  This is getting bizarre.
Quote

 I have not avoided anything,in fact,the opposite is true. I asked how one would set up this test,and i also asked how my theoretical modle would show different results to that of the current magnetic modle-->and i got no reply on the later.
Bull shit.  I explained specifically the expected differences.
Quote
I have given you examples of how my modle work's-the comb and paper,static charge attraction and repulsion. And once again,your deadly accurate theory cannot explain as to what or how a magnetic field can apply a force on a magnetically active material-->and once again,my theoretical modle dose.
Again BS.  You have been ignoring the explainations.
Quote
I know what you mean. It is often very hard to get a horse to drink,even though you can quite easly leed it to water. I see a diagram that shows electromagnets-once again,i am dealing with PM's. Can you redraw your diagram useing PM's insted of electromagnet's,and then tell me why my theory would be any different(show anything different in the test) to that of the conventional theory.
Again the special pleading.  Show that the field in the gap would be any different using two U cores with a PM in the bottom.  You can't.  You are FoS.
Quote

I am begining to see why man is still stuck with the inefficient internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels,that pollute our planet. ::)

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1294 on: January 18, 2015, 08:33:14 AM »
You seem to be mangling concepts from QED, and circuit theory alike.  SR accounts for magnetic fields pretty nicely.
SR?


Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1295 on: January 18, 2015, 08:35:49 AM »
Tinman,

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

Does the detected polarity of your particles depend on both there type (i.e., north or south emanating) AND there directional vector or just one or the other?

How do you reconcile your theory with Itsu's Hall measurements?

PW

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1296 on: January 18, 2015, 08:40:00 AM »
SR?

Special Relativity.  AKA The Special Theory Of Relativity.

Bill

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1297 on: January 18, 2015, 09:45:20 AM »
   
Quote
Do magnets have to work at room temperature.  You're special pleadings are getting silly.
Im getting silly?. You are the one going on about super conductors-->what have they got to do with every day devices that we use,eg,the humble computor. Then the claim that a super conductor requires no power input-->rubbish,the power input is in the form of cooling,unless you know a way of super cooling your super conductor without the use of energy,then your super conductor dose indeed need an energy input-->unlike that of the PM

Quote
That is utter BS.  I am really tired of this crap from you.  I have very patiently asked you question after question to get you to articulate your ideas and distill them down to where we can conduct experiments and you just keep repeating this insulting shit.

You expect answers when you deliver none of your own Mark. I have asked you !how many times?! what or how my modle would act any different to that of the current modle. B.S is when some one has tunnel vision,and dose not wish his belief's to be incorrect.

Quote
In the past dozen or so exchanges it has been a matter of pulling teeth to get you to make a statement that is not already disproven by countless experiments and stick with it.

All your experiments seem to revolve around the electromagnet,and time and time again i have asked that we refer all experiments to PM's. Look at my modle Mark,and tell me straight out what differences would we see in a PM if it worked the way i said it dose. would my modle not work the very same way as the current modle,would it not show the very same magnetic field effects? The difference is that my modle explains what it is that acts apon magnetically active materials,where as yours dose not

 
Quote
Note this nonsense where you insist first that all electromagnets must consume power, then when that doesn't fly you resort to more special pleadings concerning temperature or whether the magnet can go into a toy or not.
The nonsense lies within the belief that a superconductor dosnt require an energy input to retain it's super conductive properties.You just failed to note that the cooling needed is indeed an energy input. I have!on countless occasions! aske that we deal with PM's,not electromagnet's,and i also specified reasons for this on many occasions.

Quote
I have asked you specific questions such as how these "magnetic charges" form across a singularity and appear to repel away to each other at the point of creation while accelerating towards each other at the same time.
And this i have answered on many occasions as well. When the initial charge separation takes place,it is like charging a battery.When these oppositely charged particles exit the material that holds these seperated charged particles,they are then free to reunite,as opposites attract.Much the same happens in a solar panel-quote: Sunlight is composed of miniscule particles called photons, which radiate from the sun. As these hit the silicon atoms of the solar cell, they transfer their energy to loose electrons, knocking them clean off the atoms. .So a charge sepperation takes place,and gives us our voltage potential across the negative and positive output terminals.

Quote
In all of this you have failed to state any magnetic difference between EMs and PMs.  I am about done putting up with this.
I am about done asking repeatedly that we deal with PM's and not electromagnets for reasons explaind on a number of occasions.

Quote
You have instead fought tooth and nail to try and claim that there is a fundamental difference between EMs and PMs without articulating any magnetic difference.
I have made no such claim other than an electromagnet requires an energy input(including your super conductor),where as a PM dose not. Why do you continually try to misslead readers?.

 
Quote
The conventional explanation of a PM is that a majority of the atoms are electron spin aligned
Electron spin aligned? How dose one aligne two electrons that are spining?.This theoretical modle is becoming more bizare as we go-aligning spinning electrons ???,and is makeing my modle look much more realistic. The Atom part we agree on,it dose play the role in how the magnetic field work's-->but not by trying to align spinning electrons.

Quote
Neutrons are not neutral?
If we are to assume that neutral means an even number of charges of opposite charge polarity,then no-neutrons are not neutral. If we are to assume that neutral means inactive or have no charge potential,then yes,they are neutral. Neutrons have no charge.

Quote
Show that the field in the gap would be any different using two U cores with a PM in the bottom.  You can't.  You are FoS.
Once again you are missleading the readers. I never said there would be any difference between useing a PM or an electromagnet. I have asked !how many! times now that we use PM's for reason that PM's require no power input.The whole idea in the end is to use PM's to generate power in a similar way that a solar panel or hydrogen fuel cell dose. Only your repeated insistance on useing electromagnets has added fuel to the fire of this discussion.

What was your profession again Mark?
Your theoretical modle of the magnetic field and how it works in regards to a PM is outdated,and incomplete-this is fact. If it was exacly as they say it is,then all would be answered. But after 200 years,they still cant answer the basic question's-there modle just dosnt supply the information needed to do so. One thing you said about gravity and the magnetic field hold  true-they dont know how either dose what it dose. All mass in regards to a PM(and most all other masses) are made of atom's,and atoms have both a negatively and positively charge particle-along with a neutral/no charge neutron.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1298 on: January 18, 2015, 10:40:45 AM »
Tinman,

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

Does the detected polarity of your particles depend on both there type (i.e., north or south emanating) AND there directional vector or just one or the other?

 

PW
PW
My modle is based around the Atom,and the charge separation of the atoms charged particles. When the charges are separated within the magnetic material,i see the electron pushed to one end,and the protons all pushed to the other end of the magnetic material-and i say this knowing that not all atoms will have there charges separated,and is dependand on material used as to how many atoms have there charges separated.The two separated oppositely charged particals(the electron and proton)remain separated within the magnetic material by a wall of neutrons.

Here is a little something you might like to read.
We all know the story. Electrons and protons are attracted to each other. That's why a balloon rubbed on hair clings to clothes. The electrons it gained are crying out for protons and dragging the rest of the balloon along with them. But electrons and protons are right next to each other in the atom. Why don't they just smoosh together?

Learning science is a lot like learning history; when you get to one class what you learn is that the things you learned in the last class, or in the last four years of high school, was wrong. Often, the teachers of the previous class get terribly resentful about this, and slip in little previews of what you'll be learning a few years from now. This adds some confusion for students and not a little crankiness for the later professors, but it is somewhat less surprising to learn, for example, that the model of an atom that has served so faithfully when describing bonds and electric flow and such simply doesn't hold up when you want to learn why the electron and the proton, which apparently are so enamored of each other that they'll pull together your laundry every time you take it out of the dryer, don't just rush at each other when they're staring at each other over the radius of, say, a hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom has one central proton, which apparently attracts electrons, and one electron, which attracts protons, orbiting planet-like, around it. Despite their desire for each other, they don't just cross that tiny distance and come together in a torrid subatomic night of passion, and that makes no sense (in many ways, I suspect).

The only explanation for this, according to physics teachers, is that an electron, of course, does not hang outside a nucleus like a planet in a star system. How quaint it is that you believed that for all those years! It makes them chuckle, sympathetically and decorously, into their copy of Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman (It's signed!). The problem is that an electron doesn't exist as a planet-like blob and it doesn't orbit anything. Instead it's something that kind of 'might' exist over a range of area and at a range of velocities.

The overall combination forms an amorphous cloud of potential electron. And this cloud has an equilibrium. When it can spread out over a large space, it can have a pretty low range of velocities. When it's packed into a smaller space, its various velocities go up, and it pushes away again. (Yes, it's that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that you last saw making a nuisance of itself in the second Jurassic Park movie.) The 'orbit' of the electron is the happy medium between the lovestruck electron rushing in towards the proton and collapsing the cloud, and the electron spreading away from the proton and growing listless and still.

For those who find this romance too sad, take heart. A bit of that cloud actually does pass into the nucleus, so they can be united, although they rarely interact even when they buzz through each other. Only unstable atoms, with a lot of protons in their center, will occasionally snag an electron. This wild night will leave the world with a thoroughly satisfied neutron - just a little bit heavier than a proton - and a little baby electron-sized neutrino being shot out of the atom to make its way in the world.

Quote
How do you reconcile your theory with Itsu's Hall measurements?
Could you please post the link here for me PW,as there were a few video's i say some time back.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1299 on: January 18, 2015, 11:09:33 AM »
Tinman,

Do I understand from your response that the charges you refer to in a magnet are indeed the same as electrostatic/electric charges wherein a surplus of positive is at one pole and a surplus of negative is at the other pole?

Is this the same electrical charge we normally associate with causing electroscopes and voltmeters to react? 

I was under the impression you were theorizing a new particle or pair of particles associated with magnetic force.  If that is more so the case, then again, if you would, please answer the following:

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

PW 

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1300 on: January 18, 2015, 12:11:02 PM »
Tinman,


Is this the same electrical charge we normally associate with causing electroscopes and voltmeters to react? 


PW
Quote
Do I understand from your response that the charges you refer to in a magnet are indeed the same as electrostatic/electric charges wherein a surplus of positive is at one pole and a surplus of negative is at the other pole?
Some what correct,but as there is a dead short through the magnetic material,then no electrical charge potential can be detected between or at the pole ends.The effect is very similar to that of static charge attraction,and that is why i used static charge as an example.

Quote
I was under the impression you were theorizing a new particle or pair of particles associated with magnetic force.  If that is more so the case, then again, if you would, please answer the following:

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

This is more the case-in reference to a new particle. I tried some time back to describe the mixing/joining pattern of these particles of opposite polarity. If we take a bucket and place a partition in the middle of the bucket,and fill one half with hot water,and the other half with cold water,then remove that partition,we will get a blending of the two(hot water and cold water).In the middle we will have warm water,and this slowly gets hotter as we move toward the side we placed the hot water in.Then from the center again,moving toward the side we placed the cold water in,we will slowly drop in temperature. So from one side to another(one pole to another) we see a smooth transition from one state to another-negative charge to positive charge. At the very center there will be a net charge of the two,thus the charge will be neutral. The neutral charge area will not attract another magnetically active material that also has a neutral charge.

Offline NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1301 on: January 18, 2015, 12:13:13 PM »
My screwdrivers that I magnetized with this device a few years ago attract the screws much better (possibly 2X better?) than a large ferrite magnet. 
Besides the 50% (or 1%) remanent magnetization, there is also the issue of the gradient of magnetic flux density which governs the attraction force. 

Pointy objects can have a lot of magnetic curl at their ends which increases this gradient and consequently - the attraction force.  Also, there is an optimum direction in which a screwdriver can be magnetized that will maximize its magnetic gradient at the tip - and the resulting force of attraction.

Offline NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1302 on: January 18, 2015, 12:20:39 PM »
Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.
Kindly show me there are not.
No Tinman, you cannot ask him to do that.
There is a simple reason for that - it is impossible to prove an existential negative.

In case you ask "Why?" I will answer that preemptively, because: "a lack of proof of existence is not a proof for nonexistence".

However it is possible to prove an existential positive (that something exists), thus the burden of proof is on you.

Offline NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1303 on: January 18, 2015, 12:33:30 PM »
Atoms are magnetic,and the electron having a negative charge,while the proton has a positive charge,and of course the neutron has no electrical charge.
But the neutron has a magnetic moment:o
Now what ? 

Offline NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1304 on: January 18, 2015, 12:37:33 PM »
And if we wrap a coil of wire around that same screw driver,and pulse it with the correct direction of current,so as it produces a north filed at the tip of the screwdriver,what field will the screwdriver retain at the tip when the current is removed from that coil of wire?.
North