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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions  (Read 605631 times)

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1500 on: January 21, 2015, 02:16:48 PM »
So 1 more question to top it off.
If we have an energy storage device-EG-a cap,and that energy stored within that storage device is slowly dropping/being depleted-is there any way the energy can drop/be depleted without useful work being done? What can energy be transformed into that hasnt done useful work.

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1501 on: January 21, 2015, 02:21:10 PM »
Now we just have to put all this together.
In case you come up with an idea to extract the energy stored in the permanent magnet,, you should know that breaking through the high coercivity of pinning center's during its magnetization and demagnetization, is a very lossy process !!!. 
It causes severe non-resistive heating of the permanent magnet, especially if you repeat the magnetization/demagnetization cycle many times per second.   This is called the hysteresis loss. 

Contrastingly soft ferro/ferrimagnetic materials (e.g. iron, ferrites) keep this hysteresis loss to the minimum and that's why soft ferrites can operate coolly even at MHz frequencies.  Of course soft ferrites cannot be magnetized permanently because the snap back in nanoseconds - that's why they are called "soft".

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1502 on: January 21, 2015, 02:25:56 PM »
If we have an energy storage device-EG-a cap,and that energy stored within that storage device is slowly dropping/being depleted-is there any way the energy can drop/be depleted without useful work being done? What can energy be transformed into that hasnt done useful work.
Ideal capacitors don't deplete spontaneously by themselves - they hold their charge forever. 
If something depletes them then it's usually some parasitic resistance that transforms the leak into low-grade heat.  Low grade heat is not useful, but it's still energy.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1503 on: January 21, 2015, 03:09:24 PM »
@verpies
Quote
Yes, because the magnetizing machine (a hefty coil) has injected energy into the magnet while magnetizing its unpolarized magnet material in the factory.  The magnet material did not depolarize after the magnetizing machine was turned off because some of its domains got stuck on pinning centers, resulting in permanent remanent magnetization of the magnet.


I would agree and the logic here is very interesting because if a machine can impart a permanent magnetic field in a material then another machine may remove this permanent magnetic field. In which case we could say the direction of the energy stored in a permanent magnet field is reversible and may also be considered as an energy source because as we all know energy is conserved and cannot simply disappear. Now if the energy contained in a permanent magnetic field within a volume is a reversible process then it should apply to any magnetic field anywhere which opens up may possibilities.


In any case I always found it very odd that so many would seem to be applying one sided logic to a three dimensional problem. They say energy is stored in this space or volume and energy is conserved and yet they always seem to limit their perception to only one side of the equation. If we believe energy is conserved then we should believe it is conserved in every case even if it may not always agree with our particular flavor of reality.


AC

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1504 on: January 21, 2015, 03:25:02 PM »
@tinman

First off in many pages you mention your theory but I have not found where it is located. It might be good after every 5 pages to remind that link cause I have not seen it.

The magnet and coil relationship and the coil to coil relationship are two similar effects with some differences.

Magnet to coil, either the magnet or the coil has to move or a third party magnetic diversion has to move to create a pulse frequency. Something has to move so you need energy to move it.

Coil1 to Coil2, either coil has to move or one of the coils has to pulse or again you can use a third party diversion.

So far all I have read is still stuck on fields, flux and electrons and there in lies the inequity in these type of discussions for me so for me, the title Myths and Misconceptions will never be explored in an objective manner.

In reality, there are two possible causes for the magnetic effect if one is to conduct scientific observation in a totally unbiased or objective manner.

1) Standard magnetic model where a solid magnetic mass produces a field outside its physical confines.
2) Spin Conveyance model where a solid magnetic mass produces a Localized Gravitational Source (LGS).

Because of the pressures of a long standing history of belief in the magnetic field model, anyone in any position of influence able to advance any theory were kept in line with the field model otherwise they would have never reached any level of scientific proficiency hence INFLUENCE to table any second option. I have never read any other options to the magnetic field model, this, despite the fact that all three, field, flux and electron have never been proven to any satisfactory level of logic. Further then that, science then decided to invent the Quantum Atomic construct which is all based on mV or uV levels of measurement that cannot by themselves confirm the sub-atomic construct proposed. But we chew it up every day as real.

The reality of this, either conscious or unconscious decision to neglect the second cause and effect is that science has passed by decades of potential further advancements.

Science basically got sucked into a mono-vision of effects and from that perspective, which we all share today, we can only see a limited number of potential ways to play with our toys.

Let's say a group of boys are in the woods playing war and all they have are small hand held potato guns. Well since everyone is playing with the same weapon, the rules of engagement are limited to target proximity. Now let's say one of the boys saved up his money earned from his newspaper delivery route and one day buys this really sharp high power potato gun. Hmmmmmmmm. Now the same game and the way it is played has changed forever. That's where science should be, looking for more cause and effect features instead of playing the same old same old and getting the same old results.

There is nothing in science today that can either confirm or deny both of the constructs mentioned above. So why is science stuck in door #1? Is it a conscious decision to quash #2. Why after 100s of years is there not a strong movement for door #2. Why if scientists are so smart in the objective observation of nature have we not had two choices, or are they keeping door #2 for themselves or a select group.

When man invented the wheel, did he also invent wheel science? Did they know all the physics involved in a turning wheel? Or, did they just follow a pattern, make the device and use it to the best of their ability to help them in their lives? Did the wheel turn better before they new the physics? No, turns the same 360 degrees. This proves that you do not need to know the exact function for something to work and to be useful and this is our science today. The excuse that our toys work is not an acceptable measure of how exact our understanding is of science.

In North America, people will yell and booo when they are displeased with a hockey player. In Russia they will whistle when they are displeased. Which one is right? Can both exist in the same game? Sure they can.

If you take a magnet and hold it out at arms length and move it from left to right while your eyes follow the magnet, did you follow the field of the magnet or did your eyes just see the magnet. They just see the magnet and no field. So then why if you can do that with your eyes, just follow where the magnet is and not rely on any fancy field to tell you where it is, cannot an Atom do the same thing? After all, are your eyes seeing the object or are the atoms in your eyes seeing the object or telling your brain there is an object?

Science has been and is still stuck on one major aspect of nature that they call "action at a distance". They think that because something like a magnet moves another magnet from 1 inch or more away, thus action at a distance in its simplest form, there has to be field fingers reaching out and pulling on or pushing out the other magnet. There has to be something there "between" the objects that link and bind and hold and steer their orientations and based on that singular presumption, all this science we have today is how it is and our perspective of how our effects work is also solidified or cemented into a strict number of variations. 

Every reason for every effect we have today that is derived by Standard EE can be modeled by door #2 without a field, flux or electrons. Every single one of them can be explained, and more. More because you guys still have no damn clue what happens inside the wire. Oh but that is not important because our tools work so closing our eyes to this one mystery is a small price to pay for all the toys we have today. hahahaha

We already know that some atoms do things other atoms do not do. How the hell is that possible? Why should atoms in everything we make have sound science in the specific ways they work together and when we get to copper in a wire, we resort to a third party field and a fourth party electron. Nature is there hitting us on the head every damn day of our lives yelling out, "look it's the Atom doing all the effects and not a field", but we cannot listen because our mind is stuck in one mode of modus operandi.

If the field we have modeled in our minds existed, there would be so many fields around us that nothing could ever remain stable enough to exist. We cannot fathom that but it is just true.

Deep Brain Excitation is about the most precise use of a pulsed coil as you can get. Brain surgeons now know that if you can get within a few microns of a target area in the brain and give it as low as a 10uA pulse, your finger will start to jitter in tandem with the pulse frequency. So when you put your cell phone to your, does your finger jiggle given that cell phones have a very high level of output enough to make your computer speakers rumble when your phone rings. So why does it not effect your finger movement? Because it is a question of proximity because atoms do not rely on fields but direct close coupled sensing of gravity. That's why our generators have close coupled stators/rotors. Now make that rotor diameter 1 inch smaller you get nothing.

Now I understand perfectly that since people have been swimming in pool #1 for so long, that even considering taking a dip or even just dipping your toe in pool #2 may be asking someone to take a leap into the unknown, since you do not know if the water is hot or cold and if the poll is 10 feet or 100 feet deep, but at least just realizing there in another pool, is a good step forward for people to start thinking that "hey, there may be some other reasons we have not considered". From there, the sky is the limit. It just takes some time to get your thoughts off the ground.

We have managed to spend a huge fortune on CERN to find out what happened in the mS of the big bang. Why not spend a fraction of that to find out what happens in the mS of a magnet approaching a wire. Is it because the final outcome will be too much of a change in our present model? Now, that I wonder about only because I am looking for other reasons to why our OU devices do not work yet.

So @tinman, all this to say that your main question of how the magnet field goes outwards and captures the other magnet and the question of what medium is there between the magnets that does this, well, the answer is so simple, there is nothing required to do that. Only proximity, gravity and atoms that are so much smarter then we give them credit for. After all, if we are so smart, since we are atoms, they are just as smart. 

wattsup


verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1505 on: January 21, 2015, 04:04:58 PM »
I would agree and the logic here is very interesting because if a machine can impart a permanent magnetic field in a material then another machine may remove this permanent magnetic field.
Yes, but in case of magnets (hard ferromagnetics) this "imparting" and "removing" is very lossy and the magnet heats up.
However in case of soft ferromagnetics and ferrites this this "imparting" and "removing" can be done with very little losses.

Now if the energy contained in a permanent magnetic field within a volume is a reversible process then it should apply to any magnetic field anywhere.
Yes, efficient reversible magnetization happens everyday in all ferrite cored coils. (in iron/steel cored, too).

That's why discharging a ferrite cored coil takes longer with the ferrite inside it than without it, when other parameter are the same. 
When the ferrite demagnetizes, it returns the energy that was used to initially align its domains parallel to the coil's MMF.

sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1506 on: January 21, 2015, 05:20:36 PM »
   I finally found the copper that is missing today from Ed's less than permanent magnet holder called a generator.   Looks like a variable reluctance generator.  His armature completes a magnetic circuit just like a set of contacts completes an electrical circuit.  The core is that iron pipe the output windings are wrapped around.  This pipe must be polarized by the Earth's magnetic field.  He then sends a wave of magnetism of varying intensity and polarization through the IRON as the armature aligns with the iron magnets placed around the circumference of the stator.   This is interesting in that there must be a delay between current flow in the output windings and alignment of the armature with the stator flux.  You could transmit power this way using steel cables instead of copper wire.  The load current would not increase the rotor drag like it does in a typical alternator. 
  In this famous demonstration there appears to be no electrical load.  He does however have a piece of iron balanced on what appears to be a transformer core.   I wonder if it started jumping around. 
  If you placed a shorted copper coil at the end of a long steel cable I wonder if it would reflect a magnetic wave.   A small amount of input over a long time could accumulate until there is alot of energy in the magnetic resonance thingy.   A few hours of cranking that deal stored up and let loose all at once could move some rocks around or power a jackhammer etc.


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1507 on: January 21, 2015, 05:39:03 PM »
Yes.  In an ideal solenoid all of the input energy is used to create the magnetic field around that solenoid

If the inductor is ideal, then no energy input to that inductor is required, in order to maintain its field.
A bit of a brain teaser :)

If zero energy is required to maintain the field, why would energy be required to build it?

An ideal inductor implies DC resistance is 0 Ohms. There can be no power dissipation in an element that is purely inductive, and energy is simply power x time.

Of course an ideal inductor is purely hypothetical, but it does mess with our concepts of energy and limits  :o. And of course it takes energy to energize the ideal inductor ;), but it also gives back all of that energy when the source is removed.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1508 on: January 21, 2015, 06:54:41 PM »



   Sounds like Super conducting magnetic energy storage.
            John.

NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1509 on: January 21, 2015, 07:30:32 PM »
Of course an ideal inductor is purely hypothetical, but it does mess with our concepts of energy and limits  :o.

Not really.  I once conducted an experiment with a superconducting tube (which cost only $60) and once I froze the magnetic flux in it, the magnetic field persisted for hours and showed no indication of diminishing.  Eventually I run out of LN and it thawed.
See below:
http://tinyurl.com/n3udeg3

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1510 on: January 21, 2015, 07:49:56 PM »

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1511 on: January 21, 2015, 10:49:18 PM »
@tinman

First off in many pages you mention your theory but I have not found where it is located. It might be good after every 5 pages to remind that link cause I have not seen it.

The magnet and coil relationship and the coil to coil relationship are two similar effects with some differences.

Magnet to coil, either the magnet or the coil has to move or a third party magnetic diversion has to move to create a pulse frequency. Something has to move so you need energy to move it.

Coil1 to Coil2, either coil has to move or one of the coils has to pulse or again you can use a third party diversion.

So far all I have read is still stuck on fields, flux and electrons and there in lies the inequity in these type of discussions for me so for me, the title Myths and Misconceptions will never be explored in an objective manner.

In reality, there are two possible causes for the magnetic effect if one is to conduct scientific observation in a totally unbiased or objective manner.

1) Standard magnetic model where a solid magnetic mass produces a field outside its physical confines.
2) Spin Conveyance model where a solid magnetic mass produces a Localized Gravitational Source (LGS).

Because of the pressures of a long standing history of belief in the magnetic field model, anyone in any position of influence able to advance any theory were kept in line with the field model otherwise they would have never reached any level of scientific proficiency hence INFLUENCE to table any second option. I have never read any other options to the magnetic field model, this, despite the fact that all three, field, flux and electron have never been proven to any satisfactory level of logic. Further then that, science then decided to invent the Quantum Atomic construct which is all based on mV or uV levels of measurement that cannot by themselves confirm the sub-atomic construct proposed. But we chew it up every day as real.

The reality of this, either conscious or unconscious decision to neglect the second cause and effect is that science has passed by decades of potential further advancements.

Science basically got sucked into a mono-vision of effects and from that perspective, which we all share today, we can only see a limited number of potential ways to play with our toys.

Let's say a group of boys are in the woods playing war and all they have are small hand held potato guns. Well since everyone is playing with the same weapon, the rules of engagement are limited to target proximity. Now let's say one of the boys saved up his money earned from his newspaper delivery route and one day buys this really sharp high power potato gun. Hmmmmmmmm. Now the same game and the way it is played has changed forever. That's where science should be, looking for more cause and effect features instead of playing the same old same old and getting the same old results.

There is nothing in science today that can either confirm or deny both of the constructs mentioned above. So why is science stuck in door #1? Is it a conscious decision to quash #2. Why after 100s of years is there not a strong movement for door #2. Why if scientists are so smart in the objective observation of nature have we not had two choices, or are they keeping door #2 for themselves or a select group.

When man invented the wheel, did he also invent wheel science? Did they know all the physics involved in a turning wheel? Or, did they just follow a pattern, make the device and use it to the best of their ability to help them in their lives? Did the wheel turn better before they new the physics? No, turns the same 360 degrees. This proves that you do not need to know the exact function for something to work and to be useful and this is our science today. The excuse that our toys work is not an acceptable measure of how exact our understanding is of science.

In North America, people will yell and booo when they are displeased with a hockey player. In Russia they will whistle when they are displeased. Which one is right? Can both exist in the same game? Sure they can.

If you take a magnet and hold it out at arms length and move it from left to right while your eyes follow the magnet, did you follow the field of the magnet or did your eyes just see the magnet. They just see the magnet and no field. So then why if you can do that with your eyes, just follow where the magnet is and not rely on any fancy field to tell you where it is, cannot an Atom do the same thing? After all, are your eyes seeing the object or are the atoms in your eyes seeing the object or telling your brain there is an object?

Science has been and is still stuck on one major aspect of nature that they call "action at a distance". They think that because something like a magnet moves another magnet from 1 inch or more away, thus action at a distance in its simplest form, there has to be field fingers reaching out and pulling on or pushing out the other magnet. There has to be something there "between" the objects that link and bind and hold and steer their orientations and based on that singular presumption, all this science we have today is how it is and our perspective of how our effects work is also solidified or cemented into a strict number of variations. 

Every reason for every effect we have today that is derived by Standard EE can be modeled by door #2 without a field, flux or electrons. Every single one of them can be explained, and more. More because you guys still have no damn clue what happens inside the wire. Oh but that is not important because our tools work so closing our eyes to this one mystery is a small price to pay for all the toys we have today. hahahaha

We already know that some atoms do things other atoms do not do. How the hell is that possible? Why should atoms in everything we make have sound science in the specific ways they work together and when we get to copper in a wire, we resort to a third party field and a fourth party electron. Nature is there hitting us on the head every damn day of our lives yelling out, "look it's the Atom doing all the effects and not a field", but we cannot listen because our mind is stuck in one mode of modus operandi.

If the field we have modeled in our minds existed, there would be so many fields around us that nothing could ever remain stable enough to exist. We cannot fathom that but it is just true.

Deep Brain Excitation is about the most precise use of a pulsed coil as you can get. Brain surgeons now know that if you can get within a few microns of a target area in the brain and give it as low as a 10uA pulse, your finger will start to jitter in tandem with the pulse frequency. So when you put your cell phone to your, does your finger jiggle given that cell phones have a very high level of output enough to make your computer speakers rumble when your phone rings. So why does it not effect your finger movement? Because it is a question of proximity because atoms do not rely on fields but direct close coupled sensing of gravity. That's why our generators have close coupled stators/rotors. Now make that rotor diameter 1 inch smaller you get nothing.

Now I understand perfectly that since people have been swimming in pool #1 for so long, that even considering taking a dip or even just dipping your toe in pool #2 may be asking someone to take a leap into the unknown, since you do not know if the water is hot or cold and if the poll is 10 feet or 100 feet deep, but at least just realizing there in another pool, is a good step forward for people to start thinking that "hey, there may be some other reasons we have not considered". From there, the sky is the limit. It just takes some time to get your thoughts off the ground.

We have managed to spend a huge fortune on CERN to find out what happened in the mS of the big bang. Why not spend a fraction of that to find out what happens in the mS of a magnet approaching a wire. Is it because the final outcome will be too much of a change in our present model? Now, that I wonder about only because I am looking for other reasons to why our OU devices do not work yet.

So @tinman, all this to say that your main question of how the magnet field goes outwards and captures the other magnet and the question of what medium is there between the magnets that does this, well, the answer is so simple, there is nothing required to do that. Only proximity, gravity and atoms that are so much smarter then we give them credit for. After all, if we are so smart, since we are atoms, they are just as smart. 

wattsup
Indeed wattsup.
The Atom is the creator-->Adam-Atom,so darn close.
As for the rest of your post,well some are set in there way's,and some refuse to take!were not sure but! as a definitive answer.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1512 on: January 21, 2015, 11:56:23 PM »
Not really.  I once conducted an experiment with a superconducting tube (which cost only $60) and once I froze the magnetic flux in it, the magnetic field persisted for hours and showed no indication of diminishing.  Eventually I run out of LN and it thawed.
See below:
http://tinyurl.com/n3udeg3

Well, assuming an ideal source with limitless current capability, what would be the final current in a 1H ideal inductor with an ideal 1V DC supply applied? And how much energy would have been required?

If that doesn't mess with your mind, I don't know what would.  :o

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1513 on: January 22, 2015, 01:25:27 AM »
.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #1514 on: January 22, 2015, 02:46:45 AM »
A bit of a brain teaser :)

If zero energy is required to maintain the field, why would energy be required to build it?
For the same reason that it takes energy to accelerate a mass, but in the absence of friction none to maintain the mass' velocity.
Quote

An ideal inductor implies DC resistance is 0 Ohms. There can be no power dissipation in an element that is purely inductive, and energy is simply power x time.

Of course an ideal inductor is purely hypothetical, but it does mess with our concepts of energy and limits  :o. And of course it takes energy to energize the ideal inductor ;), but it also gives back all of that energy when the source is removed.
Yep.