That is absolutely false.Flux density and curl is much higher at the poles.Kindly specifically identify these effects and what evidence you believe exists for them.It is indisputable that the ferro fluid forms patterns. Your conclusions are highly disputable.Moving away from a dipole the field falls off as the inverse cube of the distance.Which "effect" would that be?  Are you still referring to inverse square law?  Because it does not work for dipoles.They certainly are.  You can scratch your head on that one.  Or to use an analogy: rub a balloon on your head.Which pictures would those be?  And why is it that we do not see any evidence of this supposed curl back from any:  Induced voltage in a surrounding coil when we move the magnet through the coil at constant velocity, or placing test dipoles around the magnet?Well given that the inverse square law does not apply to dipoles, you are already dead in the water with that hypothesis.  Given also that you have yet to come up with evidence of this curl back at the equator that you claim you are dead on both points.It is a nice pretty picture.  Without a definitive statement of the conditions under which it was taken, it offers no probative value.This is so much gobbeldygook.  Kindly define what you mean by spin on a field line.  Kindly what you are using to define discrete field lines and how to count them.There are many ways to end up with net zero induced EMF.  Inducing two equal and opposite voltages is one such way.What you call a Bloch wall in the video you utterly and completely fail to show is in fact a Bloch wall.  What you manage to show is that a soft iron device, your pointer is pushed / pulled so as to minimize the path reluctance.  There should be no surprise that means there is a strong non-linear distribution of force that favors the poles.Howard Johnson never successfully closed the loop.  He basically made oversized SMOTs, which like all SMOTs were never overunity.

Do you believe that he has established any evidence for a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet?  Do you believe that he has established any evidence for the idea that magnetic field contours around a dipole magnet form a figure eight, extending not from pole to pole, but extending from each pole to the center of teh dipole magnet?

If you believe in this curling near the center of the magnet, then why does test after test show that the field is in fact its most parallel to the dipole axis at the center rather than curling there?

EMJUNKIE has posted so many messages that are completely over the top that it is looking more and more that he is just putting on an act.

Yes,because it is like i said,the field changes from X to Y,so my statement is correct when i say that the field left of the dipole center is different to that of the right of the dipole center. So the field is not a uniform field,infact the field is opposite. And the field at the center that is suppose to be of the highest density produces no power at all when swipped across an inductor.

This field that is suppose to be there is a nothing field-it dosnt attract feromagnetic material,and it dosnt produce any power when passed across an inductor. Then there is the big iron filings rubbish,when all of a sudden iron filings now stick to this field that has no attraction to feromagnetic material,and produces no flux through the core of an inductor-->but is the largest flux field around a magnet

You see poynt-it just makes no sense. How can one of you top notch guys say-Quote:When you swipe an inductor past the north end of a magnet, you obtain a strong pulse of polarity x. When you swipe the inductor past the south end of the same magnet, you obtain a pulse of roughly the same magnitude, but polarity y (the opposite to x),
And then we get from another top notch guy saying Quote: This is wrong.  The field is fundamentally the same.  The center of the dipole will have the highest strength field, but the direction of the field does not change.

So we got one bloke saying we have an X and Y field,and another saying this is wrong,the field is the same,the direction dose not change.
Direction of what?--is this another man made muddle up?,and how can it not change if each end of the magnet produces the opposite sine wave output when the magnet approaches and leaves the core of an inductor?.

As far as the iron filings go,they do nothing more than build a path for the magnetic flux to follow. And the strange thing about this is,you can shape those iron filings how ever you want them on the paper on top of the magnet,and they will stay there--aint that a hoot.

13 to 1 MarkE you loose.

Fact - You fit the profile of an OIL COMPANY TROLL:
1: Bad Science - proven incorrect by modern Physics
2: Denial of experimental Proof
3: ignore Facts when they are given
4: refute all Data provided

MarkE and MileHigh are OIL COMPANY TROLLS

Kindly point to the evidence you find the most compelling.Again please point to the evidence that you find the most compelling.Do you contest that a compass needle aligns closely to an external magnetic field, even one as weak as the earth's?  If you do not contest that a compass so aligns, and if you believe his contention that the field curls near the center of the dipole then how do you account for the fact that a compass in fact does not turn towards the magnet at its center even when the magnet is aligned E-W to the earth's magnetic field, thus providing the earth's magnetic field over and above the curl claimed?  How do you account for the fact that as EMJUNKIE himself acknowledges that a bar magnet passed through a coil at constant velocity monotonically crosses through zero voltage as its center approaches and crosses through the coil, when the double curl he hypothesizes would dictate a double voltage inflection around the midpoint?Where has EMJUNKIE posted even a single picture that is accompanied by a description or link  to the experiment set-up, that shows any evidence of his claims?Yes, it speaks very badly.