Author Topic: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions (Read 611571 times)

tinman · « **Reply #1275 on:** January 18, 2015, 01:30:05 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 12:02:23 PM

Question-Lets look at this from current science's point of view. What explanation do they have as to why a magnetic field can exert a force on magnetically active materials?. As far as i know,they dont have one. What force/particles that have no mass can exert a force on a mass.

Quote

Answer-.Permeable, IE magnetically active materials present a low resistance (reluctance) to flux. In a given field magnetic flux concentrates in permeable material in a similar fashion to given some pressure drop and parallel pipes, more water flows through larger cross-section area pipes than the smaller cross-section area pipes. Common magnetic materials have permeabilities, IE lower reluctance per unit length compared to vacuum of a thousand or more to one. Imagine the difference in fluid flow between a 16" pipe and a half inch pipe. When the pipes are aligned to the flow there is no torque against them. Similarly, when a permeable material is aligned in a magnetic field there is no torque against it. If we turn either a pipe or a piece of permeable material versus the flux a torque develops

.
This makes no sense at all as water has mass. So it gives no real indication as to how a magnet can apply a force on a magnetically active material without that force having mass itself.

Quote

Well good, if you are comfortable that the magnetic field from one behaves the same as the magnetic field from the other then we can try and get insights by looking at them both

.
No-we are looking at the PM,not an electromagnet. The ectromagnet has an electric field as well,the PM dose not.

Quote

the fact is that as TK says, we have been using this model to build all manner of machines to high degrees of precision for over 100 years now. We reliably predict just how "hot" they get, what kind of mileage, torque etc. So, we must be doing something right

.
This is one of those misconceptions. How would my theory of a magnetic field change the way anything opperates today?. I might also point out the fact that TK uses examples that use electromagnetics,not permanent magnets(quote: this publication offers a pretty thorough explanation of how common electrodynamic machines work based on conventional theory:
-->one of the reasons we must separate the two.

Quote

But, if we could set-up a test where we have a decent sized region where the flux were absolutely straight and uniform, even at the poles things would be quite different. We could then tell whether its the gradient that causes the force as conventional theory tells us, or distance from the pole "charges" as you believe. Under those circumstances, I think you would expect that a little piece of iron would still be subject to rapidly increasing force close to each pole, whereas according to conventional theory it would not. If in the same test we can also have a region where the field curves then according to conventional theory we would be able to see the force change quite a bit going from a region of little or no flux density gradient to a region with a large flux density gradient.

And how would this test setup be done-what would it look like?

Quote

Do we agree that ferromagnetic materials are strongly attracted to the poles of a magnet?

Yes

Quote

Do we agree that you see that attraction as either pole acting like gravity on a mass?

No. First you must be able to explain as to why and how gravity acts on a mass to be able to relate it to how a magnetic field acts on a mass.

Quote

If it could be shown that a test ferromagnetic object placed between two magnetic poles was stable in any position between those poles that you would be willing to rethink this idea

If a feromagnetic object is placed between two like pole's then it will not be stable and be repelled away,as it will not be attracted to two like charges. If the poles have opposite charges(north/south as we are calling them)then the feromagnetic material will be stable.

NoBull · « **Reply #1276 on:** January 18, 2015, 01:36:47 AM »

Quote from: minnie on January 18, 2015, 12:41:59 AM

soft iron is used and this doesn't retain magnetism well,

Even soft iron has come finite coercivity and will retain some magnetization after the external field is removed.
But for practical purposes this remanent magnetization is almost zero in modern soft ferrites.

Quote from: minnie on January 18, 2015, 12:41:59 AM

also perhaps the material itself isn't really magnetised but is just concentrating the field.

...but how does it reach out and grab the flux in the space around it then?
If it isn't magnetized then you'd have to throw away the entire magnetic domain theory and observations with Kerr microscopes, etc...

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #1277 on:** January 18, 2015, 01:41:59 AM »

Quote from: NoBull on January 17, 2015, 11:58:19 PM

Yes, but when this external magnetic field is removed, then something unaligns the domains.
What do you call that "something" ?

But sometimes, they do not unalign...right?

I have a device my Dad built while at Bell Labs that magnetizes small tools like screwdrivers. It has a simple coil inside and..you put the tool in the hole in the top, press the momentary button down for a few seconds and...your screwdriver will now hold screws for many years to come.

That tells me that this unalignment does not always happen...right?

Bill

NoBull · « **Reply #1278 on:** January 18, 2015, 01:51:37 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 18, 2015, 01:41:59 AM

That tells me that this unalignment does not always happen...right?

Yes for not super soft ferrites.
The hardened ferromagnetic tip of a screwdriver has enough domain pinning that 1% of its magnetization remains after the external H field is removed and that 1% is enough to hold screws.
...but how do you call that "something" that causes the remaining 99% unalignment ?

tinman · « **Reply #1279 on:** January 18, 2015, 01:58:00 AM »

Quote from: NoBull on January 17, 2015, 11:58:19 PM

Yes, but when this external magnetic field is removed, then something unaligns the domains.
What do you call that "something" ?

All magnetically active materials have a neutral charge(an even amount of positively and negatively charged particals throughout the object). Each pole of a magnet has only one charge-one pole positive and one pole negative,and each of these is attracted to a neutral charge(our magnetically active object) Depending on the material will depend on how well the object retains it's neutral charge through the mass of the object when the induced external charge(magnetic field) is removed. Some materials can achieve charge separation quite easly(eg.metals like your screwdriver is made of) when a magnetic field is induced into that object,and this is called residual magnetism(a small amount of charges have been separated). Some materials(like ferrite) are very difficult to separate there charges,and when the induced magnetic field is removed,the charges remain neutral.But once separated(usually by a highly concentraited and powerful magnetic pulse),this charge separation is very stable. Neodymium magnets are very strong because the material allows for a very large charge separation.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1280 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:06:15 AM »

Quote from: Tinman

If a feromagnetic object is placed between two like pole's then it will not be stable and be repelled away,as it will not be attracted to two like charges. If the poles have opposite charges(north/south as we are calling them)then the feromagnetic material will be stable.

Oh come on now. Think about what you have posted. Get some magnets out and play with them. You will _never_ be able to get a ferromagnetic object to stay in a stable position between two unlike poles of permanent magnets, without active (electromagnetic, sensed, feedback loop) stabilization, or mechanical contact. The object will always run over and attach to one or the other of the poles.
And if you have two like poles, the same thing happens, the object will happily be attracted and will wind up stuck to one of the poles, or if it is big enough, both of them.

Earnshaw's theorem for magnetism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

Quote

Earnshaw's theorem proves that using only paramagnetic materials (such as ferromagnetic iron) it is impossible for a static system to stably levitate against gravity.

tinman · « **Reply #1281 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:18:39 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 18, 2015, 02:06:15 AM

And if you have two like poles, the same thing happens, the object will happily be attracted and will wind up stuck to one of the poles, or if it is big enough, both of them.

Earnshaw's theorem for magnetism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

If a magnetically active material(our object) is suspended from a string above one pole of a magnet(with say a gap of 10mm),and another like pole of another magnet is brought close to that suspended object,the object will be repelled away from both magnets.

MarkE · « **Reply #1282 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:30:18 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 18, 2015, 02:06:15 AM

Oh come on now. Think about what you have posted. Get some magnets out and play with them. You will _never_ be able to get a ferromagnetic object to stay in a stable position between two unlike poles of permanent magnets, without active (electromagnetic, sensed, feedback loop) stabilization, or mechanical contact. The object will always run over and attach to one or the other of the poles.
And if you have two like poles, the same thing happens, the object will happily be attracted and will wind up stuck to one of the poles, or if it is big enough, both of them.

Earnshaw's theorem for magnetism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

True: But consider that we make up a really big C core with nicely lapped finish on the facing poles, and a winding around its back. Let's say 50mm x 50mm faces separated by 2.5mm. We set the core on its back with the opening in the C facing up. Next we glue a 1mm x 1mm x .25mm thick ferrite to the end of a 2mm wide by 0.1 - 0.2 mm thick x 80 mm long piece of PET. We suspend that from a fixture that allows us to locate the ferrite inside the C core opening where we can move from left to right across the gap, and up and down within the gap.

Experiment 1: Power the winding. Play "Operation insert probe". Every effort to insert the probe from above will fail with the probe getting stuck to one pole or the other

Experiment 2: With the winding powered off, insert the probe dead center vertically and laterally in the gap. The fixture will be able to move the probe within the gap across the gap's length. Verify that this is so with the power off. Next repeat with the power on. Note the deflection on the PET suspension moving back and forth. Does the probe still snap to each pole?

tinman · « **Reply #1283 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:35:23 AM »

Quote from: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 01:36:47 AM

Even soft iron has come finite coercivity and will retain some magnetization after the external field is removed.
But for practical purposes this remanent magnetization is almost zero in modern soft ferrites.
...but how does it reach out and grab the flux in the space around it then?
If it isn't magnetized then you'd have to throw away the entire magnetic domain theory and observations with Kerr microscopes, etc...

The magnetic modle theory is incorrect,and my theory stands.
If the positively charged end of a magnet is bought into contact with a magnetically active material(eg.iron/steel),then the negatively charged particles within that material will seek(be attracted to) the positively charged particles at the end of the magnet.

If you take a magnet and a piece of steel that has a low charge separation factor(easly magnetised)eg.a screwdriver,and a compass,we can see this charge separation happen. If you use say the positively charged end of your magnet(and we are calling this the north field),and you stroke the tip of your screwdriver with it,the negatively charged particles will be pulled to the tip of the screwdriver,as they are attracted to the positively charge end of your magnet. When you check to see what field the tip of your screwdriver now has with your compass,it should show the opposite field to that of the magnet pole you use to magnetise your screwdriver.

picowatt · « **Reply #1284 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:49:06 AM »

Quote from: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:58:00 AM

All magnetically active materials have a neutral charge(an even amount of positively and negatively charged particals throughout the object). Each pole of a magnet has only one charge-one pole positive and one pole negative,and each of these is attracted to a neutral charge(our magnetically active object) Depending on the material will depend on how well the object retains it's neutral charge through the mass of the object when the induced external charge(magnetic field) is removed. Some materials can achieve charge separation quite easly(eg.metals like your screwdriver is made of) when a magnetic field is induced into that object,and this is called residual magnetism(a small amount of charges have been separated). Some materials(like ferrite) are very difficult to separate there charges,and when the induced magnetic field is removed,the charges remain neutral.But once separated(usually by a highly concentraited and powerful magnetic pulse),this charge separation is very stable. Neodymium magnets are very strong because the material allows for a very large charge separation.

Tinman,

The more conventional understanding states that magnetic materials already contain magnetized domains, but due to their random orientation, the net observable magnetization is near zero.

The domains within soft iron align quite easily to an external magnetic field. Soft iron has very low pinning forces to keep those domains aligned once the field is removed, so the domains within the iron return to the lower energy random orientation.

Harder alloys or PM materials have higher pinning forces. These pinning forces must be overcome during magnetization (domain alignment) requiring a higher applied field strength, but once the pinning forces are overcome, the domains tend to remain aligned. Magnet materials such as AlNiCo, SmCo, NdFeB, and the newer FeN are selected to have, amongst other qualities, very high pinning forces.

As an aside, here is an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzxTqQ40wSU

PW

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #1285 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:50:35 AM »

Quote from: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 01:51:37 AM

Yes for not super soft ferrites.
The hardened ferromagnetic tip of a screwdriver has enough domain pinning that 1% of its magnetization remains after the external H field is removed and that 1% is enough to hold screws.
...but how do you call that "something" that causes the remaining 99% unalignment ?

Not to argue numbers but..about that 1%. 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. Nothing like a neo however.

So, even if the real number is 50% retained, or even more, I get what you are saying here and I have no answer for that.

Could it possibly be that any material "wants" to return to its natural state?
I have no idea.

Bill

MarkE · « **Reply #1286 on:** January 18, 2015, 02:55:58 AM »

Quote from: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:30:05 AM

Question-Lets look at this from current science's point of view. What explanation do they have as to why a magnetic field can exert a force on magnetically active materials?. As far as i know,they dont have one. What force/particles that have no mass can exert a force on a mass..

The electric force.

Quote

This makes no sense at all as water has mass. So it gives no real indication as to how a magnet can apply a force on a magnetically active material without that force having mass itself.

It is an analogy. Look, we can either put you through a course in calculus and another in physics, or I can try to explain things to you without the calculus as I have done. The idea here is to provide an analogy that you can relate to as a way of explaining the observed behavior of this "magnetic stuff".

Quote

.
No-we are looking at the PM,not an electromagnet. The ectromagnet has an electric field as well,the PM dose not.

I'm sorry, now you seem to be contradicting yourself. I just asked and I thought you said yes you agreed that the magnetic properties of an electromagnet are the same as a permanent magnet. Your only objection was the power that you thought an electromagnet must consume to operate, which in the case of a superconducting electromagnet is zero. For a very low or zero resistance coil carrying DC the electric potential throughout the coil is (nearly) or exactly (superconductor) the same, meaning that the electric field is either very small or zero (superconductor). So, I ask again: Do you believe that there is any difference in the characteristics of the magnetism that comes from an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet. If so, what are they?

Quote

.
This is one of those misconceptions. How would my theory of a magnetic field change the way anything opperates today?.

Well, that's one of the things that the test with the parallel uniform magnetic field could potentially show. It would show that force on a permeable material depends on the flux density gradient and not the flux density.

Quote

I might also point out the fact that TK uses examples that use electromagnetics,not permanent magnets(quote: this publication offers a pretty thorough explanation of how common electrodynamic machines work based on conventional theory:

Electromagnets lend themselves to generating fields of specific shapes and strengths. With a PM, you get what you get.

Quote

-->one of the reasons we must separate the two.

Only if there is a magnetic property that we agree is different between the two.

Quote

And how would this test setup be done-what would it look like?

I posted my thoughts on this in my reply to TK on the applicability of Earnshaw to the test I am thinking of.

Quote

Yes

Good.

Quote

No. First you must be able to explain as to why and how gravity acts on a mass to be able to relate it to how a magnetic field acts on a mass.

Why must I describe why the sky is blue, if I can reliably describe when it appears blue? Either you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does: masses attracting each other, or you don't. Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don't. If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.

Quote

If a feromagnetic object is placed between two like pole's then it will not be stable and be repelled away,as it will not be attracted to two like charges. If the poles have opposite charges(north/south as we are calling them)then the feromagnetic material will be stable.

Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter. For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions. That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to. You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches. I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

MarkE · « **Reply #1287 on:** January 18, 2015, 03:02:05 AM »

Quote from: tinman on January 18, 2015, 02:35:23 AM

The magnetic modle theory is incorrect,and my theory stands.

There is nothing like spitting in the face of 200 years of some very dedicated and brilliant minds. If you are going to make such bold declarations then kindly demonstrate how to calculate the torque on a galvonometer movement using your theory. Conventional theory makes it a fairly trivial exercise.

Quote

If the positively charged end of a magnet is bought into contact with a magnetically active material(eg.iron/steel),then the negatively charged particles within that material will seek(be attracted to) the positively charged particles at the end of the magnet.

Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.

Quote

If you take a magnet and a piece of steel that has a low charge separation factor(easly magnetised)eg.a screwdriver,and a compass,we can see this charge separation happen. If you use say the positively charged end of your magnet(and we are calling this the north field),and you stroke the tip of your screwdriver with it,the negatively charged particles will be pulled to the tip of the screwdriver,as they are attracted to the positively charge end of your magnet. When you check to see what field the tip of your screwdriver now has with your compass,it should show the opposite field to that of the magnet pole you use to magnetise your screwdriver.

Unfortunately, the conventional theory also correctly predicts how a magnetized screwdriver behaves.

tinman · « **Reply #1288 on:** January 18, 2015, 03:40:37 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 02:55:58 AM

? Eiattracting each other, or you don't. Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don'tther you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does: masses . If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter. For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions. That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to. You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches. I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Quote

I'm sorry, now you seem to be contradicting yourself. I just asked and I thought you said yes you agreed that the magnetic properties of an electromagnet are the same as a permanent magnet

.
No-i clearly stated on a number of occasions that an electromagnet has an electric field as well,a PM dose not have this field.

Quote

Your only objection was the power that you thought an electromagnet must consume to operate, which in the case of a superconducting electromagnet is zero. For a very low or zero resistance coil carrying DC the electric potential throughout the coil is (nearly) or exactly (superconductor) the same, meaning that the electric field is either very small or zero (superconductor). So, I ask again: Do you believe that there is any difference in the characteristics of the magnetism that comes from an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet.

How many devices use this super conductor electromagnet in every day life machines-eg,the TV or radio? Here is the difference,and i dont know how much clearer i can make this.
An electromagnet consumes/disipates power,a PM dose not. IF we are able to use a magnetic field to produce power like a solar panel use the suns light to do so,then what point is there to use an electromagnet that consumes power when we can use a PM that dose not consume power.

Quote

Why must I describe why the sky is blue, if I can reliably describe when it appears blue

Why dose an engineer need to know why there was a structual failure in a building,and not just that there was one.

Quote

Either you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does: masses attracting each other, or you don't. Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don't. If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.

I am yet to see gravity repel a mass.

Quote

Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter. For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions. That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to. You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches. I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Current teachings give no answer as to what physically applies a force on a mass within a magnetic field-my theory dose. My theory also fits within all that current day science applies to magnetic field's. There is no differential in outcomes between what science and physics tells us about the behaviour of magnets and magnetic fields as apposed to my theory. The difference is that my theory gives an understanding as to what and how a magnetic field can apply a force to a magnetically active material.

Quote

There is nothing like spitting in the face of 200 years of some very dedicated and brilliant minds. If you are going to make such bold declarations then kindly demonstrate how to calculate the torque on a galvonometer movement using your theory. Conventional theory makes it a fairly trivial exercise

.
As did the guys that made the faster than down wind machine did.
Please tell me how my theory dose not account for every action/reaction to that of current day understanding's of the magnetic field.

Quote

Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.

Kindly show me there are not. 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.So you see,once again,the Atom can show you how all three states can come together. Why dose the electron simply not fly away from the proton/neutron cluster through centrifugal force?-because it is a negatively charge magnetic partical that is attracted to both the positively charged proton,and the neutral neutron cluster.

Quote

Unfortunately, the conventional theory also correctly predicts how a magnetized screwdriver behaves.

And if we rap 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?.

MarkE · « **Reply #1289 on:** January 18, 2015, 04:53:57 AM »

Quote

Quote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 02:55:58 AM

? Eiattracting each other, or you don't. Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don'tther you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does: masses . If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter. For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions. That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to. You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches. I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Quote

I'm sorry, now you seem to be contradicting yourself. I just asked and I thought you said yes you agreed that the magnetic properties of an electromagnet are the same as a permanent magnet

.
No-i clearly stated on a number of occasions that an electromagnet has an electric field as well,a PM dose not have this field.

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?

Quote

Quote
Quote

Your only objection was the power that you thought an electromagnet must consume to operate, which in the case of a superconducting electromagnet is zero. For a very low or zero resistance coil carrying DC the electric potential throughout the coil is (nearly) or exactly (superconductor) the same, meaning that the electric field is either very small or zero (superconductor). So, I ask again: Do you believe that there is any difference in the characteristics of the magnetism that comes from an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet.
How many devices use this super conductor electromagnet in every day life machines-eg,the TV or radio? Here is the difference,and i dont know how much clearer i can make this.
An electromagnet consumes/disipates power,a PM dose not. IF we are able to use a magnetic field to produce power like a solar panel use the suns light to do so,then what point is there to use an electromagnet that consumes power when we can use a PM that dose not consume power.

I am afraid now that you are being non-responsive. The question is what is magnetically different between an electromagnet and a permanent magnet. You seem to acknowledge that your claim of an electric field is a truism, so that's out, along with your contention that an electromagnet consumes dissipates power when a superconducting electromagnet does not.

Quote

Quote
Quote

Why must I describe why the sky is blue, if I can reliably describe when it appears blue

Why dose an engineer need to know why there was a structual failure in a building,and not just that there was one.

Because when comparing behaviors we need only know what is the same and what is different between those behaviors.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Either you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does: masses attracting each other, or you don't. Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don't. If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.

I am yet to see gravity repel a mass.

OK so I will dispense with using any gravitational analogies.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter. For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions. That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to. You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches. I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Current teachings give no answer as to what physically applies a force on a mass within a magnetic field-my theory dose.

Now you have pegged the Archer Quinn memorial bull shit meter.

Quote

My theory also fits within all that current day science applies to magnetic field's. There is no differential in outcomes between what science and physics tells us about the behaviour of magnets and magnetic fields as apposed to my theory. The difference is that my theory gives an understanding as to what and how a magnetic field can apply a force to a magnetically active material.

Fine then show according to your theory how to calculate the force on a simple galvanometer movement based on the applied current.

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is nothing like spitting in the face of 200 years of some very dedicated and brilliant minds. If you are going to make such bold declarations then kindly demonstrate how to calculate the torque on a galvanometer movement using your theory. Conventional theory makes it a fairly trivial exercise

.
As did the guys that made the faster than down wind machine did.
Please tell me how my theory dose not account for every action/reaction to that of current day understanding's of the magnetic field.

Again you are being non-responsive. 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. The DWFTTW guys were able to show their completely conforming to conventional physics ideas were correct by paper analysis and experiment. 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.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.

Kindly show me there are not. 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. So you see,once again,the Atom can show you how all three states can come together. Why dose the electron simply not fly away from the proton/neutron cluster through centrifugal force?-because it is a negatively charge magnetic partical that is attracted to both the positively charged proton,and the neutral neutron cluster.

Now you've got a new theory of electrostatics as well? Electrons are attracted to protons by electrostatic force. Are you now disputing this and claiming that it is magnetic? Seriously, what are you drinking?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, the conventional theory also correctly predicts how a magnetized screwdriver behaves.

Which means the example does not differentiate between the ideas.

Quote

And if we rap 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?.

Wait, now electromagnets are the same as permanent magnets?

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions (Read 611571 times)

tinman

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

NoBull

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

Pirate88179

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

NoBull

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

tinman

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

TinselKoala

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

tinman

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

MarkE

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

tinman

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

picowatt

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

Pirate88179

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

MarkE

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

MarkE

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

tinman

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

MarkE

Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions